Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Drug Control and System Improvement Formula Grant Program, annual report for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 [2003]

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

STATE OF GEORGIA

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance Drug Control and
System Improvement Formula Grant

ANNUAL REPORT
For July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003

L. Gale Buckner Executive Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION PLAN AND ACTIVITIES ................................................................... 7
SECTION 1: DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - PURPOSE AREA #1............ 8
SECTION 1.1: DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION (DARE)................................................................... 8 SECTION 1.2: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (S.R.O.) ................................................................. 10
SECTION 2: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES - PURPOSE AREA #2 ........ 11
SECTION 2.1 LOCALLY IMPLEMENTED MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES ......................... 12 SECTION 2.2: STATE DRUG TASK FORCE (SDTF)5 .................................................................... 14 SECTION 2.3: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL DRUG FUGITIVE SQUADS6 ............................................. 14 SECTION 2.4: DRUG ENFORCEMENT TRAINING .......................................................................... 16 SECTION 2.5: K-9 RESOURCE TEAMS ........................................................................................ 19
SECTION 3: DISRUPTING ILLICIT COMMERCE IN STOLEN GOODS AND PROPERTY - PURPOSE AREA #5 ......................................................................................... 21
SECTION 4: COURT DELAY REDUCTION - PURPOSE AREA #10 .............................. 23
SECTION 5: PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #11 .................................................................................................................................... 24
SECTION 6: OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #13............ 26
SECTION 7: DRUG CONTROL TECHNOLOGY - PURPOSE AREA #15A................... 28
SECTION 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #15B.............................................................................................................................................. 29
SECTION 9: ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT DETENTION, JAIL AND PRISON PURPOSE AREA #20................................................................................................................. 29
SECTION 9.1: DUBLIN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG COURT ............................................................ 29 SECTION 9.2: HALL COUNTY DRUG COURT............................................................................... 30 SECTION 9.3: SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND THE COURTS ............ 32
SECTION 10: STUDENT TRANSITION AND RECOVERY PROJECT (S.T.A.R.) ....... 34
SECTION 11: ANTI-TERRORISM TRAINING PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #26 . 36
SECTION 11.1: GEORGIA INFORMATION SHARING AND ANALYSIS CENTER AND GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH INSTITUTE GEOGRAPHIC TOOL FOR VISUALIZATION ANDCOLLABORATION............. 36 SECTION11.2: GEORGIA INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM (GILEE) ................................................................................................................................................... 39
SECTION 12: ENFORCING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAWS - PURPOSE AREA #28................................................................................................................................................. 41

12.2: EMANUEL COUNTY CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNIT .................................................... 42

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:

DARE Culmination Activity Report School Resource Officer Culmination Activity Report Operations Procedures and Case Management Standards for Task Forces CJRI Update

Executive Summary

Drug and violent crime continues to be fought on every front utilizing critical resources available to the State of Georgia. From the inner cities, to the rural communities which make up the state, law enforcement=s approach to fighting crime has played an integral part in shaping the development of Georgia=s statewide crime reduction strategy. Criminal justice resources are administered to allow for the greatest impact in reducing the number of criminals on the street, crimes committed by those criminals, and victims created through their felonious actions.

During the 2002 Grant Year, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (Council) acting as the administering agency for the aforementioned purpose, worked with state, local government, and nonprofit organizations to combat the drug and violent crime problem faced in each community throughout the state. As referenced in the multi-year strategy, the Council has engaged affected stakeholders and gathered their input concerning important issues. Over the past year, cooperation from these communities produced results in many areas with the help of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program (Byrne) and other federal and non-federal funding sources.

Planning efforts for this program, as required by BJA, are reviewed by the Council=s Crime Control and System Improvement Advisory Committee (CCSIAC), which serves as part of the State=s Drug and Violent Crime Control Policy Board. These planning efforts have been furthered in part by the Georgia Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). The SAC has been responsible for research in the past year that has provided needed planning information. Past research projects have focused on a statewide, needs assessment of the criminal justice process as well as a survey of crime and justice in Georgia. Previous research has also closely reviewed selected local multi-jurisdictional task forces in the state.

Specific goals have been identified and funding allocations have been established based on the program areas that are considered to have the highest priority. Georgia received a little more than $13 million from the Byrne 2002 award to the state and funded more than 69 projects in 11 of the 29 Byrne Purpose Areas.

These included cooperative projects such as multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, fugitive squads, school resource officer programs, regional K-9 projects, and automation of courts and court related agencies.

There are six areas of Georgia=s criminal justice system in which improvement has occurred related to the state=s ability to combat drug and violent crime:

Law Enforcement

S

6,316 drug arrests responsible for drugs being seized in a value of approximately $52,572,009

from local multi-jurisdictional projects which provide assistance to 93 of Georgia=s 159 counties

S

More than 1,435 fugitives were arrested by the 2 regional multi-jurisdictional fugitive squads in

conjunction with local law enforcement

S

Three regional K-9 teams conducted more than 10,832 searches for narcotics, firearms/explosives,

human scent, and K-9 patrol. These were done for local, state and federal agencies, as well as

private organizations such as private schools

Courts

S

Drug Courts throughout Georgia were established and maintained during this grant year. Eight

Drug Court programs are operational and funding has been dedicated to their continued

support

S

Four Electronic Warrant Interchange projects were established to aid in the processing efforts of

criminal warrants issued by courts at the local level. Through the electronic processing of officer

warrant requests, warrants may be issued and served in a more timely manner

Corrections

S

Continued funding for a Day Reporting Center pilot in the Metro-Atlanta area to transition

offenders in one or more areas of assistance such as, substance abuse, general educational

development diploma, or employment

Juvenile Justice System

S

314 students have participated in the Student Transition and Recovery (STAR) Project which has

dramatically increased the attendance and grades of students who have been in trouble with

either the school or the courts

Prevention, Education, and Treatment

S

School Resource Officers responded to 243 complaints, effected 122 arrests, issued 11 traffic

citations and10 trespass warnings, and provided 26 instances of assistance to law enforcement

agencies

Criminal Justice Records Improvement

S

272 audits of local law enforcement agencies were conducted to evaluate compliance with the

regulations applicable to criminal justice records systems. This effort resulted in the collection of

more than 11,620 delinquent criminal dispositions

S

An ongoing automation process of all 159 Superior Court Clerk Offices to have the ability to

electronically submit final criminal disposition records was completed as the overall process is

now operational

S

Livescan units were placed in 5 counties to further automate arrest and identification of offenders

in a timely matter.

Introduction
Report Purpose The purpose of this annual report is to provide information to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) on Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program (Byrne) expenditures and project performance. The Byrne Program is designed to increase the effectiveness and enhance the capabilities of state and local criminal justice practitioners in their efforts to control drugs and crime.
Byrne Grant The Byrne Grant is administered by the Governor=s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Subgrantees are awarded funds on a yearly competitive grant application process in conjunction with areas determined in the previous year=s strategy.
Overview of Programs as they link to program priorities articulated in the State strategy The Multi-year Statewide Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy described and prioritized areas of greatest needs. Efforts made during the 2002 Grant Cycle to address these needs are listed below:

Areas of Greatest Need in Georgia
The many and continuous successes of the Multijurisdictional drug task forces in Georgia demonstrate that local authorities can work effectively to combat illegal drugs in Georgia=s rural areas, where there is a need for the continued augmentation of law enforcement resources in order to adequately address violent and drug-related crime.
DARE, STAR, and SRO programs are needed in Georgia school districts to assist local law enforcement agencies in initiating school safety projects.
The three regional K-9 teams continued their efforts, so that more areas of the State can benefit from bomb threat responses, drug and safety searches in public schools, canine tracking of suspects.
Diversion programs for drug addicted adult offenders (e.g. drug courts, RSAT, etc.)
Improved coordination of law enforcement intelligence among federal, state and local agencies.

2002 Grant Cycle Efforts
Approximately 67% of Byrne funds were dedicated to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces.
Funding was continued for DARE and SRO projects. Funding was provided for the continuing efforts of the Rockdale and Long County STAR programs. Funding was continued for the operation of K-9 Units.
Funding was continued for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program (RSAT). Funding was provided to assist in the continuation efforts of a Drug Court in Hall County and in the Dublin Judicial Circuit. Funding was continued for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation=s Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center. This project permits local, state and federal agencies to participate in a coordinated counter-terrorism intelligence network.

Regional intelligence coordinationCresolve conflict and facilitate exchanges.

Funding was continued for the State Drug Task Force. Under the project, GBI=s Regional Offices and Regional Drug Enforcement Offices act as a conduit in which information is channeled to remove any confusion concerning appropriate contact regarding the initiation of
narcotics investigations.

Areas of Greatest Need in Georgia

2002 Grant Cycle Efforts

The accuracy and completeness of criminal justice records, in particular criminal history records indexed to single and multi-state offenders, enhances the capacity of the state to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, properly register and publicly list violent sexual offenders, and
protect Georgia=s children from child abusers.

Funding of projects under the Council=s Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan was continued.

While currently more than 78% of the fingerprint workload of the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) is received electronically, many jurisdictions in the State lack Alive scan@ devices that permit the electronic transfer of fingerprint images and related data to the State agency responsible for the maintenance of Georgia=s
computerized criminal history database.

Funding was provided for five live scan projects in Heard, Laurens, Upson, Dougherty, and Tattnall counties.

The automation of prosecution and judicial disposition reporting is a priority in Georgia. Paper disposition reporting methods do not allow for the identification of significant shortfalls in reporting, such as delinquent dispositions, and preclude expedited updates of important
criminal history record information.

Continuation funding was made available to court clerks to automate reporting systems and create electronic interfaces with the Georgia Crime Information Center. To date, the
process is completely operational.

Develop and implement effective day treatment centers for probationers and parolees with a history of substance
abuseCalcohol and illegal drugs

Continuation funding was provided to the Department of Corrections to continue its Day Reporting Center in the
Metro-Atlanta area.

Summary of Program Coordination Efforts and Activities The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (Council) is the central coordinating agency of the majority of federal criminal justice grant funding in the State of Georgia. The Council=s formal membership, which is statutorily defined, includes a representative from every facet of the criminal justice arena in addition to its citizen members which are appointed by the Governor. This representation by a 24-member body allows for coordination of criminal justice activities and initiatives in a unique and innovative manner. The representatives from each agency are able to provide insight and direction to Council staff in its efforts to coordinate and update the state=s strategic plans for drug control, Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI), and crime victim services.
The Council has additional means of coordinating efforts by virtue of its membership on many committees and task forces. The Director and/or designee serve as a member of the DARE Board, an advisory member to the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC), an advisory member to the Georgia Commission on Family Violence, and as a member of the Child Fatality Review Board. These committees and agencies provide invaluable insight to strategic development and the various needs of the state.

The funding set forth in the Multi-Year Strategy were made in conjunction with the goals described in the National Drug Control Strategy. Coordination and planning for the multi-year strategy included efforts to obtain input from diverse sources within the criminal justice system. These efforts include advertised public hearings, when a new strategic plan is required, to allow for input into funding priorities. During update years, public input is received at the bi-annual Council Meetings and at various committee meetings throughout the year. In this manner a dialogue can be established between various levels of government and community organizations to determine what programs are most desired and effective. These efforts are continued by providing time for public comment at each of the Council=s formal Council meetings.
Evaluation Plan and Activities
The Council utilizes two primary methods to determine whether projects are effectively utilizing federal funds. The first is through a financial review that is conducted on each request for reimbursement processed for each individual project. The second is through quantitative factors that are reported by each project during the grant year. The factors are determined either by the project itself, if it is unique and not easily evaluated, and by standard measurers for more well known projects such as DARE, task forces, and school resource officers. This two-part effort allows the Council to assure federal funds are spent in compliance with the grant program abstract and that results are being achieved.
During Fiscal Year 2002, the Council continued to utilize consultants teamed with staff to more effectively monitor Georgia=s multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs). The results of the earlier site visits convinced the Council=s formal members that a more in depth approach was needed to standardize task force operations. To this end, staff and consultants developed and finalized operating procedures in conjunction with Georgia Bureau of Investigation policies. All local MJTFs were monitored on-site throughout the state. In addition, all financial and operational procedures were documented and when applicable, corrective actions recommended and implemented to assure consistent operation by each local project. All local MJTF Control Boards indicated support for continued operation of drug task forces in rural Georgia where there is scarce additional resources to address enforcement of the drug trade.
Other evaluation efforts were mainly achieved through financial, desk audit, and comparative statistical reporting from the individually funded projects. DARE projects were monitored by the GBI=s DARE Training Unit in addition to the submission of quarterly statistical data.
The Council=s Statistical Analysis Center has completed its long awaited Crime Mapping study. The results of this study will be used in tandem with the Byrne program and in making appropriate funding decisions. The project has helped to identify the areas of the state where concentrations of drug related crime are highest and are in need of greater assistance through the implementation of Byrne funded projects in that geographical area.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

7

2002 Byrne Annual Report

SECTION 1: DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - PURPOSE AREA #1
During the 2002 Grant Cycle, the Council continued its commitment to addressing the issue of school safety through education and training. The Byrne Grant fortified this endeavor by providing the Council with the capability of assisting law enforcement in developing and implementing school based alcohol and drug prevention programs and in challenging the rising tide of violence on campuses. Table 1-A depicts the two types of projects funded and the total amount of funds allocated:

Table 1-A PROJECT TYPE

TOTAL # OF PROJECTS FUNDED

TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS AWARDED

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
School Resource Officer (SRO)

3

$40,146

3

$95,139

TOTALS

6

$135,285

Section 1.1: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Because the Council strives to promote and support strategies to reduce alcohol and other drug related problems among youth, three DARE projects were funded during the 2002 Grant Year. DARE is based on the premise that prevention can be a powerful solution to the nation's drug problem. The program is structured to provide school children with information concerning drug abuse, the negative consequences of abuse, and life skills for combating peer pressure. The most unique feature of this type of project is the utilization of DARE certified uniformed law enforcement officers as instructors. During this Grant Year funding was utilized for an instructional curriculum at both the elementary and middle school levels (fifth and seventh grades).

Goals, Objectives and Activities D.A.R.E.'s primary goal is to teach children how to recognize and resist the direct and subtle pressures that influence them to experiment with alcohol and other drugs. The curriculum strives to develop positive relationships between students, law enforcement officers, teachers, and the community. The objectives of the curriculum are depicted in the following chart:

Assist students in developing skills to recognize and resist social pressures to experiment with tobacco, alcohol and drugs

Increase student's self-esteem

Teach positive alternatives to substance abuse

Develop skills in risk assessment and decision-making

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

8

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The above curriculum is comprised of 17 lessons over a 17 week period and culminates in a graduation ceremony for the students.
Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods After each class of students graduates, the project is required to submit a Culmination Activity Report. The report is segmented by school, grade targeted, teacher, number of students taught and graduated, and dates of the term. The DARE Officer as well as their immediate supervisor is required to sign the report to attest to its accuracy.
A written narrative must also be submitted by the DARE Officer describing:
Evaluations and/or assessments completed by each student (most students are required to prepare and submit an essay describing what they learned during the term of instruction)
Any forms of informal interaction between the DARE Officer and the students
Any presentations made to the community promoting or providing information about the program
Participation in any enrichment or extracurricular activities
Program Accomplishments and Evaluation Results (Appendix A/Exhibit 1)
Statistics The DARE Projects experienced a 100 percent completion rate with 1,228 of the 1,228 students successfully graduating from the course. The Culmination Activity Reports have been summarized and presented under Appendix A/Exhibit 1.
DARE Students A portion of the elementary school students who took part in the DARE Program during the 2002 school year provided the best evaluation through essays written at the completion of their term. The following provides a snapshot of some of the responses students provided:

"I feel great about the D.A.R.E program because we can learn how to avoid drugs and the people who use them."

"I think the program is a good program for kids because it is telling us about drugs and how to never do drugs."

"People that use drugs aren't bad people, they just made bad choices."

"Now I know not to do drugs."

DARE Officers DARE Officers interaction with students commenced in the morning as students were taken to school by buses or their parents. Parents typically welcomed the presence of a law enforcement officer. As often as possible, officers had lunch with students and participated in physical education classes. To further cultivate a relationship with the students, the officers attended school events such as special holiday

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

9

2002 Byrne Annual Report

assemblies, carnivals, football games, field trips, and other school sponsored activities. Their participation was advantageous as it enabled students to view law enforcement as friendly and approachable. Officers also participated in leadership camps.
Section 1.2: School Resource Officer (S.R.O.)
The positioning of law enforcement officers in Georgia School Systems for the specific purpose of deterring violence among students remained a component of the Council's strategy during the 2002 Grant Cycle. These officers, known as School Resource Officers (SRO), act as liaisons between the law enforcement agency and school system. The officers investigate crimes and activities associated with misbehavior and also serve as counseling resources for students experiencing difficulties.
The Council requires that all Byrne funded SROs complete an 80-hour training course offered by the Georgia Police Academy. This training prepares officers to work in a school setting and teaches them the skills needed for interaction with juveniles and school administrators.
S.R.O. Results1 Responded to a total of 235 complaints (199 from other agencies and 36 initiated by the SRO);
Effected a total of 122 arrests (19 for felonies and 103 for misdemeanors);
Issued a total of 11 traffic and/or citations;
Issued a total of 10 trespass warnings and/or citations;
Provided 26 instances of assistance to law enforcement and other agencies;
Recovered nearly half of the reported stolen and/or lost property;
Conducted a total of 352 student conferences;
Completed 436 hours of instruction to students, teachers, and parents;
Spent 820 hours providing assistance with campus crime prevention, fund raisers and/or community drives.

1The activities of the individual S.R.O. Projects are summarized in Appendix B/Exhibit 1

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

10

2002 Byrne Annual Report

In addition to the aforementioned, the following chart illustrates how an S.R.O. transcends the role of the typical law enforcement officer.

25 20 15 10
5 0
Domestic Violence

Child Abuse Sexual Assault Stalking

Suicide Intervention

Other

Domestic Violence Child Abuse Sexual Assault Stalking Suicide Intervention Other

SECTION 2: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES - PURPOSE AREA #2
The mission of eliminating violent crime and the illegal trade of drugs through a coordinated multiagency approach represents the core of the Council's commitment to Purpose Area Two. This endeavor, carried out by Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces, forges alliances among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to effectively reduce drug and violent crime in Georgia.

Byrne funding supports four categories of
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces in Georgia.

Local Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads Statewide Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force Regional K-9 Multi-Jurisdictional Resource Teams

Approximately 67 percent of Byrne funds were allocated to Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces during the 2002 Grant Year. Table 2-A provides insight into the number of projects funded and the total amount of funds allocated to each initiative:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

11

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Table 2-A Task Forces

Total No. Of Projects Funded

Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces

28

(Locally Implemented)

State Drug Task Force (State Implemented)

1

Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads

2

(State Implemented)

Drug Enforcement Training

1

(State Implemented)

Regional K-9 Multi-Jurisdictional Resource Teams 2 (Locally Implemented)

K-9 Resource Team and State Certification Training 1 Task Force (State Implemented)

TOTALS

35

Total Amount of Funds Allocated $6,192,217
$1,150,000 $325,000
$400,000
$171,485 $495,486 $8,734,186

Section 2.1 Locally Implemented Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces
A Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) leads as Commander in 12 of the 28 local task forces. The ASAC provides experienced, capable leadership and helps to ensure an organized and cooperative effort between not only GBI and the task forces but also other law enforcement agencies. The remaining task forces are commanded by a local officer from one of the participating jurisdictions. A total of 31 task forces cover a jurisdictional area of approximately 93 of Georgia's 159 counties.
The Council has continued its commitment of providing funding to task forces across Georgia due in large part to the rural demographics of the state. Byrne funding enables drug enforcement in areas of the state that are very rural and do not have the local budgets to support such initiatives. Additionally, the state's large number of counties adds to this resource problem, and multi jurisdictional task forces are a primary benefit given this unique factor to Georgia, as it breeds cooperation from multiple law enforcement agencies in order to gain financial assistance. This is the only program in Georgia where there are examples of state, county, and city law enforcement working together on a daily basis for a specific goal.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

12

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Cumulatively, the units seized more than $52,572,009 in drugs and resulted in approximately 6,316 (16%)2of the 40,5043drug arrests statewide. Table 3-A continues to underscore the task forces' importance by identifying the value of the different types of drugs seized4.
Table 3-A
Drug Seizures

Cocaine Crack Cocaine Cannabis Methamphetamines Opiates Stimulants Depressants Hallucinogens Prescription Other
TOTAL

$5,609,463 $606,277 $42,319,792 $2,167,296 $916,030 $987 $2,487 $37,350 $153,561 $758,766
$52,572,009

Note: The amount of drug seizures listed above is particularly large considering that the average drug seizure case is not more than two or three $20 pieces of crack cocaine purchased during an undercover buy from the same offender.
Council's Taskforce Evaluation Process During the reporting period, Council staff members again continued conducting site visits to the local Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces for the purpose of evaluating operational and financial policy. The visits also presented the task force members a forum to ask questions or address operational concerns. The

2 This amount represents the majority of drug enforcement in rural areas and is particularly noteworthy considering that 85% of task forces lie outside of metropolitan statistical regions and that the remaining 84% of arrests originate primarily from local task forces in metropolitan areas that are 100% locally funded.

3 This number represents the total number of drug arrests for calendar year 2002 because 2003 figures were not available. This number does not include marijuana possession less than one ounce as drug task forces do not typically target this type of misdemeanor offense.

4The value of the drugs for each task force was calculated using a standard value chart obtained from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is shown in Appendix C/Exhibit 2.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

13

2002 Byrne Annual Report

staff performed audits of the task forces' financial management system, which included verification pertaining to the purchase of evidence and information. In addition, the visits included audits of the forfeiture and operational accounts, utilized to verify balance and appropriate expenditure. Council staff members conducted surveys of the task forces' evidence room and reviewed grant purchased equipment. Furthermore, staff gauged activity of the unit's effectiveness by the size of the cases worked and/or targeted. The size of the task force (number of employees) was taken into account.
Each visit began with an introductory meeting and question and answer session. The visit was subsequently followed by the auditing of the above mentioned items. At the conclusion of each audit, questions and concerns were addressed between task force members and Council staff. Each site visit was followed up with a letter of compliance.
In the previous annual report it was reported that the Council had planned to partner with Abt Associates, Inc. to conduct an in-depth evaluation of Byrne funded task forces throughout the state. Due to funding not being appropriated to Abt Associates the Council did not conduct this evaluation.
Section 2.2: State Drug Task Force (SDTF)5
The Council recognizes that undercover agents are critical to the successful arrest of street-level narcotics dealers and users. It is for this reason that $1,150,000 was allotted to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's State Drug Task Force (SDTF) Project. The Project furnished undercover operatives and surveillance units to Georgia law enforcement agencies grappling with narcotics-related and violent crime problems.
Under the project, GBI's Regional Offices and Regional Drug Enforcement Offices acted as a conduit in which information was channeled to remove any confusion concerning appropriate contact regarding the initiation of a narcotics investigation. After receiving information from the offices, Assistant Special Agents In Charge (ASACs) at the local multi-jurisdictional task force coordinated investigations. This effort strengthened the State's edge on the narcotics trade. The task force provided support to law enforcement in 35 counties and conducted 35 undercover operations during this reporting period. Arrests and seizure statistics are not relevant as they are reflected in local task face operations.
Section 2.3: Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads6
Each year, thousands of individuals are wanted in the State of Georgia for violent and drug related crimes. The majority of these individuals are repeat offenders who maintain extensive criminal histories. Research indicates that many of these offenders travel to Metropolitan Atlanta and Middle Georgia, as the population and socioeconomic structure of these areas are conducive to the individual's attempts at supporting their fugitive status.

5Statistical data is not provided for this project due to the fact that the information is reflected in local arrest numbers and local multi-jurisdictional task force numbers (depending upon the arresting agency).

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

14

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The Metro Fugitive Squad is comprised of eleven different agencies.
Five local agencies Five state agencies Two federal agencies

The Middle Georgia Fugitive Squad consists of
eight different governmental agencies.
One federal agency Four state agencies Three local agencies

Because the Council is committed to rectifying this problem, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was provided with $325,000 for the continued operation of two drug fugitive squads covering Metropolitan Atlanta and Middle Georgia.
Both squads are based on a multi-jurisdictional approach involving the cooperation and participation of federal, state, and local agencies and required to report statistical and anecdotal data regarding the operational aspect of their specialized units.
The data submitted confirmed that during the grant year, squads apprehended and/or arrested a total of 1,435 offenders. Approximately 37% of the total arrests were drug or gang related. Some of the crimes and/or violations initiating the apprehension of these offenders were as follows:
631 of the offenders arrested were the result of probation/parole violations 324 of the offenders arrested were the result of drug violations 139 of the offenders arrested were the result of theft/robbery violations 69 of the offenders arrested escaped from either a federal or
state correctional facility 56 of the offenders arrested were wanted for fraud/forgery violations 23 of the offenders arrested were wanted for murder

Numbers are clearly important to assessing the program effectiveness of drug fugitive squads; however, anecdotal data is equally as important. The following story is provided to shed light on the scenarios that the agents face each day:
On June 17, 2002, a fugitive investigation was initiated for a series of armed robberies and kidnappings in Manning, South Carolina. During the course of the investigation it was learned that the suspect was linked to a multi-state theft ring, which targeted jewelry stores throughout the southeast. On August 29, 2002, the suspect was taken into custody at a local Atlanta nightclub. At the time of arrest the vehicle used by the suspect was impounded. Further investigations resulted in the recovery of an estimated $235,000 in stolen jewelry which was linked to the previous crime spree. Through the investigation agents were able to link the suspect to an ongoing crime spree, ultimately resulting in the arrest of co-defendants and the recovery of a large amount of stolen jewelry.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

15

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Section 2.4: Drug Enforcement Training
The Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) administers the State Drug Enforcement Training Program (DET) through its Georgia Police Academy Division. The Council awarded $400,000 to this initiative during the 2002 Grant Year. With GPSTC being a comprehensive training complex for use by all state and local public safety units of government, the Council recognized the agency's unique opportunity of providing narcotics related training to law enforcement officers.

The DET Project provided 121 individual programs to municipal, county, and state officers on-site at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center or one of its academies. While local officers comprised a majority of the students enrolled in the program, application guidelines allowed course coordinators to give preference to drug task force members.

DET courses have been re-visited each year and changed to reflect new information concerning drug trends, techniques in fighting drug crimes, speaking patterns and symbols, gangs and school violence, cultural and language classes (i.e. Spanish I-III), and clandestine drug lab investigation. Table 4-A lists some of the DET courses presented during the grant year:

Table 4-A

Courses Offered Through the DET Program (2002 Grant Period)

Rural Patrol* Rave and Club Drugs* Electronic Surveillance Georgia Gang Investigator's Course Street Gang Identification Clandestine Drug Labs Verbal Judo Drug Interdiction Operations Courtroom Expert Survival Spanish Introduction to Drug Enforcement
*Represents new and updated courses

Due to the broad range of specialized courses, the DET Project was able to offer in-service classes to various local jurisdictions in addition to individual courses held at the Training Center. This represented a "holistic" approach to meeting the law enforcement community's needs, as in-service classes enabled entire agencies to benefit from training. Courses were offered at the Center when there was a need for certain specialized equipment. However, other courses that did not require these types of equipment

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

16

2002 Byrne Annual Report

were provided off-site via agency request. These courses were tailored to accommodate the needs of agencies requesting the training.
All of the courses offered under the DET Program were Georgia Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified. The following represented a sample of the courses the program encompassed:
Operation Pipeline / Convoy Training This course was designed for state and local law enforcement officers whose primary duties included drug interdiction and traffic enforcement. It emphasized the legal and practical methods of utilizing traffic stops for the seizure of contraband and/or money. Coordinated through the El Paso Intelligence Center and funded by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the course aimed to coordinate the seizure of contraband/monies into further enforcement activities including controlled deliveries and post seizure analysis. At the conclusion of the training, participants were exposed to the current case law regarding search and seizure as applied to highway interdiction. The course covered issues of consent, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. The participants were exposed to visual and audio indicators of deception and possible indication of criminal activity as applied to the activity an officer performs during a valid traffic stop. The participants were exposed to concealment methods used by criminals in prior interdictions, and how indicators of deception led the officers to extend their roadside interview during a traffic stop.
Criminal Apprehension for Patrol This course assisted the street officer and supervisor in recognizing and effectively dealing with "traveling criminals." These criminals roam the interstates and secondary roads of Georgia, dealing in stolen vehicles, drugs, and illegal weapons and explosives. The training included drug interdiction traffic stops and placed emphasis on officer safety.
High Risk Warrant Service This course was designed for officers in departments that did not maintain specially trained tactical teams and served felony or drug warrants with existing personnel. Students attending this course were trained in the development of tactical plans, briefing procedures, implementation of the plans, building clearing techniques, and after-action procedures. The course included a mixture of classroom training and practical exercises.
Technical Surveillance/Body Transmitters This course was designed to address the law enforcement aspects of body transmitters in covert operations. The purpose was to present participants with the necessary training in RF transmitters and repeaters. It also updated officers on the new technology available and the proper use of existing equipment to aid in undercover operations.
Analytical Investigative Techniques Seminar This course is intended for law enforcement officers who are involved in criminal and narcotics investigations. Classroom presentations include instruction in techniques used in investigative analyses of complex narcotics cases. Hands-on experience in a series of exercises allows students to become familiar with all techniques. Topics include Sources of Information, The Internet as an Investigative Tool, The Analytical Process & Analyst's Role, Link Analysis, Flow Charting, Telephone Toll Analysis, Computerized Spread Sheet Analysis and Charting and Case Summary Analysis.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

17

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Project Impact The subgrantee was required to provide the Council with quarterly reports utilizing such indicators as:
I. The number of courses available at the Training Center and at off-site locations. The Training Center provided 121 courses on-site relating to drug enforcement to prospective applicants during the 2002 Grant Period. Twenty-nine classes were offered off-site.
II. The number of students attending training sessions. A total of 3,385 students attended these training courses throughout the grant cycle.
III. The number of students successfully completing courses. A total of 3,198 students successfully completed the courses offered.
IV. The cost per student. During the 2002 Grant Cycle, the Training Center was able to offer 121 DET Courses at a cost of $35.82 per student.7
The Georgia Police Academy, Georgia Public Safety Training Center, network of regional academies, drug task forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, federal agencies, and other criminal justice agencies all worked together in providing the Drug Enforcement Training Project with guest speakers and students.
Student Evaluations Every student is attending training through the Georgia Police Academy is asked to complete a course evaluation of the material provided. The evaluation consists of asking the student to provide an overall evaluation highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the course. Questions also center on course content, delivery and examinations. Each evaluation form has space for student's to elaborate or add additional comments. Below a sample of these comments are provided:
This was an excellent course, with lots of great information and instruction.
The course placed an emphasis on real world tactics.
This is the best course I've had since becoming a police officer.
Everyone in my department needs this training.

7The dollar amount noted represents the cost to the grant on a per student basis.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

18

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Section 2.5: K-9 Resource Teams
Beginning in 1997, the Council embarked on a strategy to establish K-9 Resource Teams in which specialized detector dogs were made available to local law enforcement agencies on a regional basis. This provided a success formula that mitigated individual agencies (in the requisite area) of the responsibility of managing, supporting, and training their own canine units.
The mission of the project was to provide quality service to law enforcement agencies by maximizing efforts in the location of specific evidence while reducing the man-hours required to accomplish an investigation. To achieve this mission, teams were centered around the following activities:
Safe school searches (narcotics and firearms) Street sweep operations (narcotics and firearms) Neighborhood drug activity suppression (narcotics) Traffic safety checks (narcotics and firearms) Service of search warrants (narcotics, firearms, explosives, human scent) Recovery of evidence (narcotics, firearms, explosives, human scent) Community drug education/detection demonstrations (narcotics) Participation in multi-level narcotics interdiction efforts (narcotics) Narcotics sweeps of correctional facilities (narcotics) Explosive detector (threat response, physical security, VIP protection) Tracking team response (criminal, search and rescue) Cadaver location (criminal) Operational planning and implementation (explosive threat, physical security, VIP protection); (The K-9 Training Facility provides assistance with this activity)
The Teams may be comprised of one or more of the following components depending on the requirements and available assets of a specific region:

Narcotics K-9 teams for detection of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.
Explosive/firearms K-9 teams for detection of common military and civilian explosives
Human scent discrimination; hard surface tracking, rural tracking, evidence
Cadaver detector; decayed human scent
Patrol dog; (May be in combination with any of the above detector specialties)
Explosive incident specialist/K-9 liaison officer; Explosive threat and physical security planning
and training

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

19

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The Regional K-9 Teams located in Chatham8, Dawson, and Richmond Counties have been able to assist local, state, federal, multi-jurisdictional, and private agencies over the course of the projects' existence.
1Th0i,s8a3ss2istTanocetamladSeeBayrrcnhe feusnded K-9 projects three of the most successful in the state. Initiatives for
the 2002-G8,r7a2n1t fYoerarncaorcnositsitcesd of the following: -2,105 for firearms/explosives -6 for human scent
7810 searches conducted (local agency requests) 1,652 searches conducted (state agency requests) 2,523 searches conducted (federal agency requests) 435searches conducted (private organization requests) 346 misdemeanor arrests 454 felony arrests 195 educational demonstrations for civic, professional, and school settings
As noted above, the Chatham County K-9 program is larger than its counterparts based on the number of handlers. It is also the one state funded program and is managed by the Georgia State Patrol. In addition, this program maintains a training component that is utilized by numerous task forces and other members of law enforcement. During this grant year, the task force conducted nine basic handler trainings that were attended by 20 total students, and handlers taught one advanced courses that had five total students.9
In addition, to the above noted trainings the Chatham K-9 Task Force presented on the following subjects:
Subjects Taught
Bomb Threat Management
Bomb Scene Management for Supervisors
Proficiency Training
Bomb Threat Response
Explosive Canine Team Annual Certification

8This project represents a larger initiative and maintains a certification component for the Augusta and Dawson County Teams. Ten certified handlers fall under the project.
9Both the Basic Handler and Advanced Courses are divided into narcotics and explosives sections.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

20

2002 Byrne Annual Report

SECTION 3: DISRUPTING ILLICIT COMMERCE IN STOLEN GOODS AND PROPERTY - PURPOSE AREA #5 One State Project ($38,851)
The Department of Motor Vehicle Safety's Tag and Title Fraud Unit was created in July 2002, upon notification of receipt of a 2002 Byrne award from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and became fully operational in September. The DMVS provided one investigator and one Supervisory Investigator for this Unit and filled the position funded under the grant effective September 16, 2002. Despite the Unit's small size, the statistical accomplishments have been tremendous for such a short period of time, and the success partly can be attributed to each member's prior experience with law enforcement. The Unit Supervisor previously worked with the auto crimes section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the two investigators previously were employed with the Enforcement Units of the Public Service Commission and Department of Transportation. In addition to the knowledge and experience each brought to the Unit, the contacts previously established with other local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies ensured existing agencies would be receptive to and cooperative with the new Unit. During the 2002 Byrne Grant period, this Unit has been able to identify various vehicle theft rings and other related problems during its investigations, either alone or conducted jointly with local sheriff's offices, the FBI, or the U.S. Secret Service. In addition, since its inception, this Unit has received constant requests from other agencies (particularly the FBI and related terrorist task forces) for vehicle and license information and for assistance with locating various individuals under investigation.
The first objective of the Tag and Title Fraud Unit is to detect and prevent fraudulent tag and title documents from being passed through state and county offices. Given the size of the State and the large number of counties, maintaining contact with each county has been difficult. However, through various meetings with the metro area (28) county tag office employees and available intranet devices, the Unit has been able to alert county offices of various fraudulent and counterfeit MV titles being presented at county and state tag offices. Color copies of the various fraudulent titles have been supplied to auto theft squads and tag offices for their review, as well as being publicly posted for the Motor Vehicle Division examiners. As a result, the various tag office supervisors and employees have been vigilant in recognizing fraudulent documents and titles and immediately bringing them to the attention of the Unit for investigation. The Unit Supervisor has established databases within Microsoft Access to maintain a record of case openings, vehicle recoveries, arrests and other statistical accomplishments. These databases are used as a measuring tool to track the volume of fraudulent documents passing through state and county offices and include immediate detection of counterfeit documents, as well as fraudulent documentation discovered after a title was issued.
Despite the high degree of internal cooperation, the Unit also is responsible for investigating unethical employee conduct and ensuring that all tag offices are purged of dishonest employees who trade Georgia tags and titles for monetary gain. To date, the Unit jointly has invested one allegation with the Spalding County Sheriff's Office, which resulted in the arrest of two individuals charged with 48 counts of title fraud. Unfortunately, one of the individuals was employed by the Spalding County tag office.
Training also played an important role in the detection of counterfeit documents during the past year. The Unit provided in-service training concerning title fraud, VIN recognition, and heavy truck examinations at the Marietta Police Department for 30 officers and detectives from agencies across the metro-Atlanta area. In addition, the Unit Supervisor taught title fraud and VIN recognition classes at the Georgia Association of Tax Officials (GATO) conference in Athens, which were attended by representatives from all county tag offices. The Unit also attended speaking engagements to provide information and tips to larger groups, such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Region 2 conference at Stone Mountain in June, which represents state motor vehicle and drivers license investigators and employees from the various southeast states. Unit staff also presented information at

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

21

2002 Byrne Annual Report

the South East International Association of Auto Theft Investigators (SE-IAATI) conference held in Atlanta, which was attended by auto theft investigators from the southeastern United States.

The second objective of this Unit is to increase the apprehension and arrest rates of individuals and businesses responsible for tag and title fraud activity. Through individual or joint investigations with other agencies and states, the Unit is arresting suspects and recovering stolen vehicles on a daily basis. Offenders typically are taken into custody and charged with title fraud, theft by taking, theft by receiving stolen motor vehicles, and/or insurance fraud. Initially, very few district attorney's offices and law enforcement agencies were aware of the Title Fraud (40-3-90) statute or of the existence of the DMVS Unit. Although this presented a major obstacle, the investigators were able to overcome this impediment through training, frequent contact with these offices, and an increase in fraud prosecutions made in the various metro-Atlanta counties.

For example, a joint investigation with the Newton County Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's Office for the Alcovy Judicial Circuit revealed that counterfeit Mississippi and Ohio motor vehicle titles were being used to sell stolen, high-line vehicles. This matter was recently brought before the Newton County Grand Jury whereby a "RICO" indictment (20 counts) was returned on seven defendants involved in a metro Atlanta interstate auto theft ring. This example illustrates the camaraderie created between the Georgia DMVS and local agencies, as well as an increase in the number of arrests and prosecutions.

The third objective of the Fraud Unit is to increase the number of offenders prosecuted for auto theft and passing fraudulent documentation. During the course of the grant year, numerous individuals submitting fraudulent documents to the GA DMVS Motor Vehicle Division have been investigated and subsequently arrested as allegations were substantiated. During the first quarter of the grant alone, the Unit helped identify over 300 vehicles registered in Georgia with fraudulently prepared surety bonds. To date, three individuals have been convicted in Clayton County alone, with pending indictments in Clayton, Cobb, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Bartow and Barrow counties. Although these cases have not been closed yet, they actively are being tracked through contact with the prosecutor's office.

Because evidence documentation typically is the key to successful prosecution of cases, the Unit Supervisor continually stresses the importance of properly handling evidence and following chain of custody rules. Proper handling has ensured that appropriate charges were brought against suspects in the past and has helped avoid costly processing mistakes that inadvertently may have affected a case. In addition, analyzing the documentation procedures followed in different cases and comparing them to case outcomes will assist with determining which procedures need improvement to increase conviction rates and produce stiffer sentences.

The fourth and final objective of the Fraud Unit is to serve as an information clearinghouse for all law enforcement agencies within the State. As a result of constant cooperation and collaboration with various statewide auto theft squads, these squads have grown to depend upon the Unit's access to information about counterfeit and fraudulent titles and documents being presented in Georgia and elsewhere in the United States. Acting as a central figure, Unit investigators have ensured that local agencies are informed of tips and leads imperative to their cases and have provided numerous training courses and attended many speaking engagements. This Unit coordinates investigations reaching across many county boundaries in Georgia and perseveres in its efforts to link detectives in various jurisdictions. This intrastate bond allows detectives to communicate more effectively and to combat auto theft being perpetrated by the same individuals across county lines.

The following is a compilation of arrests, stolen vehicle recoveries, values of those vehicles, and individuals identified as suspects in investigations opened by the Auto Crime / Title Fraud Unit during the grant period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

22

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Warrants

July 2002 Sept 2002 Oct 2002 Dec 2002 Jan 2003 Mar 2003 Apr 2003 June 2003

0

0

22

0

Arrests

10

5

12

7

Indictments

0

0

2

7

# of Recovered Vehicles

12

8

26

24

Value of Recovery Items

$481,000

$209,300

$506,600

Other Items

Recovery

Partial vehicles from chop shop valued at $481,000

One Lincoln welding machine valued at $2,800

-------

$215,200
$31,000 in stolen gift cards

During the first quarter, the Unit helped identify more than 300 vehicles fraudulently registered in Georgia. A joint investigation with Newton County Sheriff's Office produced eight stolen vehicles valued at $208,000 and three arrests. Two investigators assisted with a search warrant on a chop shop, and recovered $481,000 in vehicles and parts. Altogether, ten people were arrested, and 12 vehicles were recovered.
In the second quarter, one vehicle stolen from Forsyth County was recovered in Hall County by an investigator. A stolen 1999 Landrover Discovery was recovered in an investigation conducted in conjunction with the DeKalb County Police Department. This quarter produced 5 arrests and 8 vehicles valued at $209,300.
The third quarter had the most impressive statistics. The 12 arrests included three white males, one white female, seven black males and one Hispanic male. The recovery items include 24 vehicles, one semi-tractor, and one 45-ton Fontaine trailer. The recovered items are worth an estimated $506,600.
In the final quarter, the Unit arrested seven individuals either separately or in joint investigations with local and federal authorities. In addition to the 24 recovered vehicles valued at $215,200, stolen Home Depot gift cards also were recovered during one of the arrests.

SECTION 4: COURT DELAY REDUCTION - PURPOSE AREA #10 Electronic Warrant Interchange - 4 Local Projects ($150,875)
Georgia counties are experiencing remarkable population growths. These growths have caused increased crime rates. A large number of the reported crimes are violent in nature, which can make the investigation and prosecution of the offender a lengthy process. Consequently, local government resources used to combat crime quickly dwindle, and law enforcement personnel do not have the additional resources to effectively perform their duties.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

23

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Addressing the above-described problem, involves a modification in the current Warrant Attainment Process through the implementation of an Electronic Warrant Interchange (EWI) System through the county's Magistrate Court. Implementation of an EWI System will enable the County, at a minimum, to:
Effectively track and manage all warrants entered into the system; Reduce officer time involved in initial warrants by eliminating the time associated with driving from the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) site to the Magistrate Court and the return trip in order to secure the warrant;
Houston County was awarded $51,998 to implement an electronic warrant interchange (EWI) system. In addition, system and software installations were conducted at the Houston County Magistrate Court, Houston County Sheriff's Department, Warner Robins Police Department, Perry Police Department, and Centerville Police Department. Training of the judges and all law enforcement personnel was conducted by June 2003.
Lumpkin County was awarded $31,336 to implement an electronic warrant interchange (EWI) system. This system is for use by the County Sheriff's Office and the Magistrate court. Upon completion of departmental training on the use and functions of the EWI system, full implementation is scheduled to take place.
Pierce County was awarded $35,760 to implement an electronic warrant interchange (EWI) system. This system has allowed the county to effectively track and manage all warrants entered into the system. It also allows for a reduction in the time it takes for an officer to have an initial warrant issued, therefore allowing the officers to spend more time on street level law enforcement activities.
Ware County was awarded $31,781 to implement an Electronic Warrant Interchange system. This project was embarked upon as a joint partnership between the Sheriff's Office, Magistrate Court, and the Waycross Police Department. The purpose was to provide an electronic warrant service between the above-mentioned agencies. Benefits realized with this system were the reduction of law enforcement and court personnel down time; timely and efficient methods and processes for the issuance of criminal warrants; timely first appearance and probable cause hearings; and a reduction of the jail population.
SECTION 5: PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #11
Savannah Impact Program 1 Local Program ($30,336) The City of Savannah received Byrne funding to help establish a program targeted at reducing recidivism among persons currently under court ordered or correctional supervision. Through the efforts of dedicated personnel, committed partners, and continued citizen support, the Savannah Impact Program (SIP) is able to effectively supervise parolees and probationers (both adult and juvenile).
The SIP was tasked with initiating effective crime reductions through intensive supervision and intensive support services directed at high-risk parolees and probationers. A Policy Board was established comprised of collaborative partners and a Citizens Advisory Group with representatives including community leaders, area business owners, and local media. To further enhance the SIP, community partnerships have been developed to facilitate customized programming and referrals to employment and educational services for offenders. The primary monthly offender population has grown to 420 since inception and the SIP's goal is to ensure that each offender is on a program track. The four program tacks are substance abuse, cognitive skills, education, and employment.
Priorities are driven by the needs and direction of the project's offender base. SIP employees have undergone intense training ranging from computer software applications to tactical operations and

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

24

2002 Byrne Annual Report

interview/interrogation training. In direct response to concerns from residential neighborhoods, SIP personnel met with community groups to provide an overview of the SIP and to share the program goals and objectives.

Supervision The intensive supervision of the Savannah Impact Program is the result of a variety of factors. First, the parole and probation officers assigned to SIP have lower case loads than those officers assigned to the local parole and probation offices. Typically, SIP officers have approximately 50 cases whereas their counterparts in the local offices have anywhere from 125 to 200 cases. The SIP officers' caseloads are primarily high-risk and maximum parolees/probationers, which require more contacts, compared to other parole/probation officers whose caseloads have a mixture of low-risk to standard offenders. The lower case loads and team management has allowed the officers to effectively manage offenders.

In addition, Savannah Police officers are partnered with parole and probation officers to co-manage their caseloads utilizing a team concept. This team concept enables a continuity of supervision. When the supervising officer is on leave or training, the police officer will make the required field contacts, drug screening, and ensure that the offender is abiding by the terms and conditions of their release.

Services The majority of the services provided to parolees/probationers are conducted at the SIP. Conducting classes at the SIP facilitates an effective dialog between the supervising officers and the instructors/facilitators. It also enables supervising officers to increase interactions with offenders, identify poor attendance and participation, deal with issues and problems quicker, and recognize those offenders who are making progress.

Substance Abuse Counseling The SIP Substance Abuse Program is an individualized, comprehensive program available to offenders. The program consists of offenders who volunteer, as well as, those who are mandated to attend. It also includes drug/alcohol group therapy with a heavy 12-Step emphasis, life/social skill classes, educational improvement classes, case management, and individual counseling. The program has seven phases and a minimum nine-month requirement.

Department of Labor Specialist A full-time Department of Labor (DOL) Specialist is assigned to the SIP and is charged with meeting with offenders for employment referrals. The DOL Specialist also assist offenders in completing applications and provides Employment Readiness Training which includes employer expectations, skill identification, interviewing skills, and job retention.

Moral Reconation Therapy The Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a 13-Step program that is designed to modify the thinking and decision making process of offenders. The range of the steps encompasses trust, healing relationships, goals, morals, and evaluation of themselves and their personality. The SIP currently has two adult classes and one juvenile class.

Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) This is a sixteen-week cognitive based program that addresses offenders' thinking deficits. R & R teaches skills to replace "old" reactive-impulsive skills with "new how-to" skills which promote pro-social behavior.

Performance Measures The Savannah Impact Program differs from conventional policing, as it places emphasis on offender reentry and community relationships. Community relationships include having the offenders give back

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

25

2002 Byrne Annual Report

to the community in the form of community service hours, working closely with employers, and developing working relationships with various service providers. With that in mind, the program focuses on four basic quality of life issues: education, employment, addiction, and cognitive thinking. In addition to these performance indicators, the program also concentrates on effective monitoring of offenders. Monitoring on weekends, evenings, conducting curfew checks, and tracking the amount and type of interactions that the offenders have with the program and it's personnel are all typical examples.
Of the 1,080 offenders supervised during 2002, 119 or 11% of the adult offenders were revoked back to prison and 15 or 23% of the juvenile offenders were revoked. The average monthly employment rate was 83% for adults and 50% for juveniles. In addition, a total of 1,767 drug screens were performed and of that amount 272 tests were positive resulting in a 15% positive rate for the year. The charts below provide a visual cue as to the significance of the program:

120 100
80 60 40 20
0 Revoked

Adults/119 or 11%
Juveniles/15 or 23%

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
Employment
Rate

Adult Employment Rate 83%
Juvenile Employment Rate 50%

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 Total Drug Tests

Positive Results

Overall Drug Screens Administered 1,767/100%
Positive Drug Test Results 272/15%

Prior to launching the Substance Abuse Classes (SAC), the SIP experienced a 32% positive rate per month. Once the classes began, the rate of positive screens was reduced by half. Participants in the SAC were also tested. The program experienced 8% positive rate. These results reveal that structure and intensive supervision have proven to be an effective tool in offender rehabilitation.
SECTION 6: OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #13 The Atlanta Day Reporting Center - 1 State Project ($439,313)
The mission of the Atlanta Day Reporting Center (ADRC) is to offer a structured and effective community alternative to incarceration. The mission is achieved by addressing the specific needs of substance abuse, unemployment or under-employment, along with improving the chances for offenders to successfully integrate back into the community. In addition, the ADRC is working to address the lack

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

26

2002 Byrne Annual Report

of community-based drug intervention programs and will strive to reduce the recidivism rate of participating community corrections offenders. The ADRC is guided by both the Georgia Department of Corrections and the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. In addition, previously nonexistent, interdepartmental working relationships have been formed between employees of both departments.
Services are provided to offenders who appear to be failing under standard supervision. The center staff is responsible for case management including intake, referral for assessment, developing and monitoring the intervention plan, individual case evaluation, and program discharge planning. The center is also responsible for aftercare by providing linkages with community-based treatment/intervention to ensure continuity of services.
ADRC strives to target both male and female probationers and parolees. Sex offenders and those with severe mental health and/or mental retardation are excluded from the program. In addition, offenders who have new unadjudicated offenses are not allowed to participate. The average program length is between six and nine months.
Offenders begin the program with a week of diagnostics, as well as, an evaluation to assess specific risks and needs in each of the core areas. A combination of community service, cognitive skills, life skills, adult literacy, GED preparation, basic computer skills, and vocational counseling may also begin in the first week. Substance abusers, however, will enter a three-week psycho-education course to enhance their motivation for treatment. Upon completion of this pre-treatment phase, those clients are randomly assigned to one of two substance abuse treatment programs.
Program participants may be enrolled in one of two GED classes. One class is taught through a partnership with the Atlanta Public School System. A computer lab has been installed at the ADRC and a University of Georgia professor has volunteered to teach basic adult education, GED preparation, basic computer skills, and a leadership development class. In partnership with the Georgia Department of Labor, The Offender Parolee Probationer State Training Employment Program (TOPPSTEP) will provide employment assessments, job readiness and job retention classes designed specifically to address offender needs. In addition, program participants are required to perform 80 hours of community service. Restorative justice is an important part of the ADRC program. Through community service, offenders can begin making restitution for the damage their crimes caused to the community.
Program Highlights The Atlanta Day Reporting Center (ADRC) has received 597 referrals since opening on April 3, 2001. Of that number, the following statistical information was gathered:
78% (466) were probation referrals and 22% (131) were parole referrals. Four hundred offenders were accepted into the program and 197 were not accepted for failing to meet criteria eligibility Of those referred, 77% (148 probationers and 3 parolees) failed to appear for intake and are included in the "not accepted" total Sixty-one percent (246) of the offenders accepted for program participation were unsuccessfully discharged (71% [175] probation and 29% [71] parole) for various program violations One hundred forty-one offenders were discharged for absconding (75% [106] probation, 25% [35] parole) 45 offenders were discharged for continued positive drug screens (66% probation [30] and 34% [15] parole) 31 were discharged for committing a new offense (67% [21] probation 33% [10] parole), fourteen (57% [8] and 43% [6] parolees) were discharged for general programmatic noncompliance,

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

27

2002 Byrne Annual Report

and five offenders (80% [4] probation and 20% [1] parole) were transferred out of the program for serious mental health issues.
Graduation Results Graduation results from the ADRC program during the Byrne reporting period are represented below (Graduates will be required to complete six-months of aftercare consisting of weekly group counseling sessions and random drug screening at the ADRC):
Nine offenders graduated in February 2003 (67% [6] probation and 33% [3] parole) and eight graduated in April 2003 (100% [8] probation).
A total of 107 offenders have graduated from the Atlanta Day Reporting center representing $1,926,000 in prison cost avoidance. Of those graduates, 82% (88) were probationers and 18% (19) were parolees. Those offenders have performed a total of 9,416 hours of community service valued at $48,492.
SECTION 7: DRUG CONTROL TECHNOLOGY - PURPOSE AREA #15A Georgia Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Upgrade 1 State Project ($268,282)
The purpose of this grant was to provide for Medical Examiner Investigators to assist in death investigations. In doing so, this allows for this particular project to improve the efforts of the State Crime Laboratory at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The project had two primary goals. The first of those goals was to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Medical Examiner Investigators role in Death Investigation activities in the Division of Forensic Sciences (DOFS). And secondly, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Firearms ID and Trace Evidence sections of the laboratory as they relate to Death Investigations.
With those goals the projects anticipated multiple improvements in investigative processing times and case backlog reduction. The Medical Examiner Investigators' addition to the DOFS has helped in reducing the need for medical examiner callbacks, has reduced the submission time of autopsy evidence to other laboratory sections and has improved custody and security of that evidence. The backlog of old Trace Evidence cases has been substantially reduced and computerized entry of bullets and cartridge casings relating to homicide cases have increased to within 10 days of receipt.
For 2002 Byrne Grant period, the activities completed by the four investigators included:
Four grant-funded investigators worked 1,233 deaths. The funding for the investigators allowed the state crime lab to have 1 investigator on autopsy duty each day. As such 281 sets of postmortem prints were obtained without the necessity of using personnel from the latent prints section. The postmortem prints resulted in the identification of 22 unidentified decedents.
The investigators allowed the state crime lab to have investigators on duty 24/7 and provide scene response to 183 scenes. Having 24/7 work schedules also allowed a reporter of a death to have direct contact with an investigator on a real time basis rather than having the initial report taken by a radio operator at night and held until the next morning. Real time decisions allowed for a more timely and efficient autopsy process and provided for immediate exchange of information between the Medical Examiner's Office and field investigators.
The four investigators were a critical part of the medical examiner function provided by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation-Division of Forensic Sciences.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

28

2002 Byrne Annual Report

SECTION 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #15B Live Scan Devices 5 Local Projects ($193,312)
To hasten automation of record systems, the Council allocated funds to Heard, Laurens, Upson, Dougherty, and Tattnall County Sheriff's Offices. This assisted county law enforcement agencies with the following:
Converting fingerprint records to digital images which could then be transmitted and stored
electronically in computer databases Quickly transmitting live scan prints of persons arrested to the state and national repository A higher level of accuracy to prints submitted to the state and national level for processing Reduction of the fingerprint card rejection rate A savings of time and money in preparing fingerprint cards for mailing to the state and national
repositories. The live scan project was initiated to provide local jurisdictions through their respective county jails, with a system to quickly input arrestee fingerprint information into a centralized database. This allows for quicker processing time of individuals who have been arrested as well as allowing for much more accurate identification of said arrestees. The live scan devices drastically reduce the need for a law enforcement entity to use traditional fingerprint cards which if not processed correctly, is rejected by the fingerprinting identification system. By utilizing a live scan device, a digitized fingerprint of an arrestee is then easily stored and/or transmitted to a centralized database for faster positive identification and reduces the costs in the use of and mailing of manually printed fingerprint cards. The live scan device also allows for almost immediate access to and retrieval of the fingerprints that have been placed into the system.
SECTION 9: ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT DETENTION, JAIL AND PRISON PURPOSE AREA #20
Section 9.1: Dublin Judicial Circuit Drug Court ($27,000)
The Dublin Judicial Circuit Drug Court continues to operate as a model for rural drug courts in Georgia. The Court recognizes the benefits of offering treatment to substance abusers ---reduction in case loads, court expenses for grand jury and prosecution, and the amount of jail space used by non-violent offenders. There are also social benefits to this type of program, as abusers are provided the opportunity to seek treatment and become productive members of society. All drug related cases are reviewed for possible involvement in the Special Drug Court Program. The fundamental goal of the Court is to offer treatment to substance abusers and to develop a more efficient and effective system of case management for specified drug related offenses.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

29

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The following individuals are eligible to participate in the Drug Court Program:
Adult Men Adult Women Nonviolent Offenders Offenders with Substance Addiction First Time Offenders Probation Violators

The Court operates in three phases and provides detoxification, outpatient, inpatient, individual counseling, and group counseling services. Participants must remain drug free for a specified period of time and cannot be rearrested.

The Dublin Drug Court offered the following statistics during the 2002-2003 Grant Period:

CLIENTS

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June

Phase I

14 9

10 12

12

14

11

11

11

11

13

10

Phase II

8 14

11 10

11

11

12

10

11

11

10

8

Phase III

17 13

14 12

10

11

13

9

12

11

10

15

Referred to 1 3

2

2

4

5

2

2

6

program

3

2

0

Grads

0 5

2

3

4

2

0

5

0

3

2

0

Sanctions

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Did not

0 1

1

0

1

0

2

3

2

complete

1

0

0

Section 9.2: Hall County Drug Court ($87,707)
Initial planning of the Hall County Drug Court began in March 2000. Byrne funding soon followed and a Steering Committee was appointed which was comprised of representatives from the following entities:
District Attorney's Office Gainesville Police Department Hall County Sheriff's Department Multi-Agency Narcotics Squad (MANS)
Defense Bar Treatment Community
State Probation Pre-Trial Division

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

30

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The Steering Committee met periodically to design the operational procedures for the Drug Court. The following design was developed and has remained an integral portion of the program since it's inception.
Benchmarking: During the concept phase, representatives from the DA's office and other court house staff were recruited to conduct fact-finding missions to other active Drug Court programs operating in Georgia. Benchmarking trips were made to Drug Courts in Bibb and Glynn counties. The information gathered was used in the planning of the Hall County Drug Court.
Collaboration of Stakeholders: In an attempt to minimize conflict among the various community agencies and to gain complete participation, the major players were invited to attend the annual conference of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The conference provided awareness of the problem and a Drug Court as a plausible solution. In addition, it provided the buy-in for the Drug Court concept.
Staffing: The steering committee developed a staffing plan that consisted of a Drug Court Director, administrative assistant, 2 case managers, and three counselors. This will facilitate treatment and provide offenders with evening group sessions.
Population Selection: Hall County is located in a rural area with a very demographically diverse population. Criteria the specific criteria for being offered to participate in the Drug Court are: 1)Possession of a controlled substance 2)Possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (where drug use is a contributing factor) 3)Prescription drug offense
Number of clients As of June 30, 2003, 186 participants were being supervised in the program from its inception. Since that time, 23 participants have graduated from the program and 110 remain actively involved.
Program Design This is a two-year, 5-phase program that focuses on intensive drug and alcohol treatment. A participant handbook and a policy and procedure manual are now in place. Curriculum and treatment standards are in keeping with future licensing and accreditation.
A decision on a participant's dismissal from the program is derived from recommendations from the team during weekly staff meetings. Each participant is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and all facts/circumstances are presented to the presiding judge. The judge makes the final decision based on information presented. Twenty-seven people have been dismissed from the program to date.
Treatment is organized in the following five (5) phases: Phase 1 Attend meetings five nights per week two hours per night for a minimum of two months. In addition, one 12- step support meeting required on the weekend, and at least two drug screens per week.
Phase 2 Attend meetings three nights per week, two hours per night, for a minimum of four months with two 12- step meetings required, and at least two drug screens per week.
Phase 3 Attend meetings two nights per week, two hours per night, for a minimum of six months with three 12- step meetings required, and at least two drug screens per week.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

31

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Phase 4 Attend meetings one night per week, for two hours, for a minimum of 6 months with four 12step meetings required, and at least one drug screen per week.
Phase 5 For a minimum of six months take part in aftercare/continuing care group, which convenes one - two times per month with a required four 12-step meetings per week. Drug screens are "more" random at this point but will average a minimum of 1 time per week.
Court Appearance: While in treatment, clients are required to report to court weekly in Phases one three, every other week in phase four, and a minimum of one time per month in phase five.
Group Process: The Group process is used primarily; however, there are individuals who have more specific needs. The program commences with basic education of the disease concept and gradually begins addressing all areas of life including: family, social, health, spiritual, mental/emotional, and educational. Any area that cannot be addressed in-house is directed to a certified treatment provider. These providers are used on an as-needed basis.
Section 9.3: Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts ($243,750)
For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council awarded a Byrne Grant to the Supreme Court of Georgia for assignment to local judicial jurisdictions to assist in the funding of Drug Courts.
For Fiscal Year 2002-2003, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council approved second year, continuation funding under the Byrne Grant to the Supreme Court of Georgia for assignment to local judicial jurisdictions to assist in the funding of Drug Courts. Four sites were initially selected to receive funding: DeKalb County Superior Court, Chatham County Superior Court, Muscogee County Superior Court and Athens/Clarke County State Court. The grant award was equally allocated to each site. From a total initial grant of two hundred forty-three thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($243,750), each court was allocated sixty thousand, nine hundred thirty seven dollars and fifty cents ($60,937.50).
Athens/Clarke County State Court Discussions between representatives of the Supreme Court and the Athens Area Drug Court team began in November 2000 and the Athens Area Drug Court program began operations on January 8, 2001 as the first DUI Drug Court in the State.
The Athens Area Drug Court program resumed operation on a limited basis in August 2002 and resumed full-scale operation on October 1, 2002. At the present time, there are 81 participants in the program.
The Athens Area Drug Court program received and expended $81,250 in first year funding, $60,937.50 in second year continuation funding, and was awarded $40,625 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant.
Carroll County Drug Court Program The Carroll County Drug Court program receives misdemeanor level cases referred by the District Attorney for Carroll County in a pre-trial diversion model.
The Carroll County Drug Court fully expended $26,618 awarded using de-obligated funds and was awarded $8,705 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant.
Chatham County Drug Court Program Chatham County's interest in a Drug Court program began in the summer of 2000 when representatives from the Fulton County, Bibb County and Glynn/Camden County Drug Court programs were invited by

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

32

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Chatham County Chief Judge to provide information on the operation structure of their respective programs.

Chatham County's political leaders encouraged Court officials to maximize their efforts to obtain grant funding to start their program. In addition to obtaining funding under the Byrne grant, the Chatham County Drug Court team submitted a grant application, requesting five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in implementation funding, to the Drug Courts Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. The Chatham County Drug Court team deferred an actual start date for the program until notice was received as to the status of the pending grant application, which was rejected.

Undaunted, by using Byrne grant funding as well as local funding and in-kind services, the Chatham County Drug Court program accepted its first participants on October 1, 2001. At the present time, there are 46 active participants in the program and they are scheduled to hold their first graduation in November 2003.

The Chatham County Drug Court program received and expended $81,250 in first year funding, $60,937.50 in second year continuation funding and was awarded $40,625 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant.

Cobb County Drug Court Program Plans for a Drug Court program in Cobb County Superior Court has received strong support and local funding from county commissioners. The program began operating in October 2002. Cobb County has contracted with Well-star Health Services to provide substance abuse treatment and counseling as well as drug testing for the drug court program. The Cobb County Drug Court program receives adult felony drug related offenders referred by the District Attorney for Cobb County in a pre-trial diversion model. At the present time, there are 27 active participants in the program.

The Cobb County Drug Court program fully expended $81,250 awarded in de-obligated funds and was awarded $40,625 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant. There is every reason to believe that the Carroll County Drug Court program will expend their total allocation under third year continuation funding.

Conasauga Judicial Circuit Drug Court The Conasauga Judicial Circuit Drug Court program began operating on February 12, 2002. The program receives adult felony drug related offenders referred by the District Attorney for Whitfield and Murray Counties in a post-adjudication model. An award of eighty one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($81,250) was made to the program for start-up costs. The Court celebrated its one-year anniversary earlier this year. At the present time, there are 46 active participants.

The Conasauga Judicial Circuit Drug Court program fully expended $81,250 awarded in de-obligated funds and was awarded $60,938 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant.

DeKalb County Drug Court Program Representatives of the Georgia Supreme Court Drug Court division visited with representatives of the DeKalb County Superior Court and DeKalb Judicial Circuit District Attorney in November 2000. The Chief Judge and the District Attorney expressed their strong support for the implementation of a Drug Court program in DeKalb County Superior Court.

In December 2001, tangible progress started toward the implementation of a Drug Court program. Support from the County Commission increased and a Public Defender was assigned to work with the program. DeKalb County applied for, and received, training grant from the Drug Courts Program Office. Members of the Drug Court team attended three one-week sessions to learn more about the

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

33

2002 Byrne Annual Report

implementation of their Drug Court program with the final session ending in May 2002. The DeKalb County Drug Court program officially began operation in July 2002.

At this time, the DeKalb County Drug Court program has made considerable progress toward institutionalization. There are 36 active participants in the program. DeKalb County has signed a contract with their local Community Service Board to provide substance abuse treatment and counseling services to drug court participants. The program has created a Drug Court team which includes representatives of the judiciary, the DA's office and representatives from the Defense Bar, the local Community Service Board and DeKalb County Pre-Trial Services, as well as a Community Advisory Board; representing the interests of many concerned citizens and agencies throughout the county. At the present time, there are 36 active participants in the program.

Initially, the DeKalb County Drug Court program received $81,250 in first year funding and $60,937.50 in continuation funding under the Byrne grant. DeKalb County has fully expended all funds awarded to them under first year and second year allocations, which totaled $81,250. The court was awarded $40,625 in third year continuation funding under the Byrne grant program.

Thunderbolt Drug Court Program The City of Thunderbolt Drug Court program began operating in March 2002. The Court represents the first municipality in Georgia to begin a Drug Court program. Like Carroll County, their focus is on misdemeanor alcohol and drug cases in a pre-trial diversion model. An award of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) was made to the City of Thunderbolt to help start their program.

The following table identifies the above listed Drug Courts and some of the data captured by those courts:

# Persons Accepted

Drug Courts

Athens/Clarke 112

Carroll

26

Chatham

27

Cobb

22

Conasauga 34

Dekalb

50

# Persons # Positive # Screened Screens Negative
Screens

116

36

179

151

Unk

Unk

42

Unk

Unk

27

90

409

75

20

1540

99

27

2070

# Total Drug Screens Administered

# Persons Expelled from Program

218

2

1154

16

1819

9

499

1

1560

7

2097

12

Section 10: Student Transition and Recovery Project (S.T.A.R.) 2 Local Programs - ($112,983)
By far one of the most unique projects funded through the Byrne Grant during the reporting period was S.T.A.R. (Student Transition and Recovery). It represents a collaborative effort between the court, school systems, and the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Students ages of 8 to 17 are eligible to be served by S.T.A.R. The overall goal of the program is to increase student success in school through an approach designed to significantly impact juvenile delinquency,

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

34

2002 Byrne Annual Report

school discipline referrals, school drop out rates, academic success, school attendance, parental involvement, and training and support.

The S.T.A.R. Program consists of various individuals from representative agencies and includes parents who served in an advisory capacity. S.T.A.R. depends on the school system to perform its function, which is to educate. It is also reliant upon the juvenile justice system to provide appropriate due process. While the program borrows from the "boot camp" philosophy, it is quite different in that participants live at home rather than in an institutional setting. The project is less expensive than residential programs and encompasses a mandatory parental involvement component. The student's placement into the program occurs in one of two ways: as part of the school disciplinary process or as an order of the court. Upon referral of a child to the juvenile justice system by the school or a local law enforcement officer, the case is reviewed by a juvenile court staff member. The family enters the program as part of the informal legal process if: (a) it was determined that there was probable cause that the child committed the offense; (b) that the child would benefit from supervision and the services of the program; and (c) that the child and his parent were willing to participate in the program. During weekdays, students report to the S.T.A.R. campus at 5:30 a.m. They participate in closed order drill and exercise programs, shower, eat, and report to their regular school campus. At the end of the school day, the participants report back to the host campus where they complete their homework assignments, study, work on projects, and participate in additional drill activities until their parents picked them up at 6:30 p.m.

On Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, students perform community service work including such activities as cleaning up the school campuses and picking up trash. Parents are required to attend parenting classes and students are enrolled in either S.T.A.R. I (24-week Component in which students are ordered by the court to attend as an alternative to incarceration for detainable, severe offenses), S.T.A.R. II (1-Day Component) in which students are referred for unruly behavior, S.T.A.R. III (30-Day Prevention Program) in which students are referred for serious, continuous rule violations, or S.T.A.R. IV (2-week Component) in which students are referred to the program by parents and school officials for continuous misconduct.

Results
During the reporting period, the S.T.A.R. program was explained to students, parents, and the community via Parent Teacher Organization meetings, handouts distributed by teachers, and the local news media. The S.T.A.R. program was supported by Byrne funds in two Georgia counties; Long and Rockdale. A total of 314 students were enrolled and participated in the various STAR Programs.

Both programs utilized staff that consisted of a coordinator, drill instructor, and teacher. Equipment such as computers, uniforms, and televisions was purchased. Additionally, vans from government surplus were used to transport students from the S.T.A.R. facility to their perspective schools and back to the S.T.A.R. facility in the afternoons. Project evaluation revealed the following statistics:

Number of students attended by Program Component: S.T.A.R. I (27)=8% S.T.A.R. II (186)=59% S.T.A.R. III (68) =22% S.T.A.R. IV (33)=11%
Average recidivism rate: Number of days students absent before S.T.A.R.: Number of days students absent after S.T.A.R.:

11% 759 13210

10Of the number reported 28 days were due to one student's mother having terminal cancer which caused the student to miss the last 28 days of school.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

35

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Average Student G.P.A. (percentile) before S.T.A.R.:

62%

Average Student G.P.A. (percentile) after S.T.A.R.:

71%

Students by age: Age 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Number 4 7 18 39 80 66 58 26 15 1

Students by race and gender: Black - 149 White - 153 Hispanic - 7 Other 5

Male - 238 Female - 76

Students provided: Total Hours of Community Service Total Phone Checks: Total Surprise Home Visits: Total School Days Saved:

2,196 2,714 578 3,745

SECTION 11: ANTI-TERRORISM TRAINING PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #26

Section 11.1: Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center and Georgia Tech Research Institute Geographic Tool for Visualization andCollaboration 2 State Projects ($774,000)

In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, Georgia's Governor created the Georgia Homeland Security Task Force (GHSTF) on October 25, 2001. It was created to devise and implement a homeland security strategy to protect Georgia citizens, property, critical infrastructure, and key assets from terrorist attacks. As its first priority, the GHSTF initiated the Georgia Information and Sharing Analysis Center (GISAC) project in support of the GHSTF's broader mission, encompassing intelligence analysis, planning, incident management, and consequence management, in order to better secure the State of Georgia from terrorist threats and attacks. GISAC is the only state-level agency dedicated solely to homeland security, anti-terrorism, and counter-terrorism operations. GISAC serves as the investigative-intelligence component of Georgia's Office of Homeland Security.

On January 9, 2003, the incoming Governor created the cabinet-level position of Director of Homeland Security to lead and oversee the State's efforts to detect and prevent and, if necessary, respond to and manage the consequences of terrorist attacks. Additionally, on January 13, 2003, the Governor issued an executive order establishing the Office of Homeland Security, encompassing the Georgia Homeland Security Task Force, Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA), and GISAC.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

36

2002 Byrne Annual Report

The mission of GISAC is to serve as the State's focal point for the collection, integration, analysis, and dissemination of information relevant to terrorist threats and attacks against Georgia 's citizens and property. GISAC centralizes state law enforcement investigations, target identification, as well as intelligence collection, integration, analysis, and dissemination efforts, using a multi-agency approach directed toward detection, interdiction, prevention, and warning of terrorist activities. During the 2003 fiscal year, GISAC was staffed with nine Special Agents and two Criminal Analysts from the GBI, two Critical Infrastructure Analysts from GEMA, one military Intelligence Analyst from the Georgia National Guard, one Department of Public Safety Criminal Investigator, one Criminal Investigator representing the Georgia Chiefs of Police and one Criminal Investigator representing the Georgia Sheriff's Association. Administrative support for GISAC was non-existent during the 2003 fiscal year. However, two support personnel have been hired, as grant positions, for the 2004 fiscal year.

2003 GISAC Personnel

9 Special Agents, GBI

1 Criminal Investigator, DPS

2 Criminal Analysts, GBI

1 Criminal Investigator, Local Police Dept.

2 Critical Infrastructure Analysts, GEMA 1 Criminal Investigator, County Sheriffs Dept.

1 Military Intelligence Analysts, GNG

GISAC developed tools and systems designed to track information and has formed strategic partnerships with the Georgia Data Center at Kennesaw State University and the Georgia Tech Research Institute and others in developing technology to assist GISAC in accomplishing its operational mission. GISAC has been successful in obtaining CJCC grant funding to develop and acquire advanced technology to be used in intelligence analysis and operational planning. These projects are on going and are being implemented in stages.
As part of its outreach during FY 2003, GISAC has published and disseminated 12 periodic intelligence bulletins to the law enforcement community and 10 special alert bulletins to law enforcement, public safety, and public health communities. GISAC has also published and disseminated 10 periodic "open source" bulletins, which are available to non-law enforcement personnel who have an interest in homeland security issues. GISAC now disseminates the law enforcement bulletin monthly and the "open source" bulletin weekly. GISAC is also a member of the FBI's InfraGard program and the Southeast Business Continuity Planners Association, which further expands GISAC's outreach to the private sector. Additionally, the program has developed working relationships with local, state, and federal government agencies throughout the state of Georgia, in order to facilitate effective communications and exchanges of terrorism information. Relationships with the private sector, such as General Aviation, Hotel/Motel security groups, and Fortune 500 security groups have been developed through GISAC contacts and GISAC program presentations.
During the 2002 Fiscal Year, GISAC Agents and Investigators have conducted over 600 inquires into suspicious activity occurring in or around Georgia, developing and disseminating information concerning such activity to concerned stakeholders, such as federal, state, local law enforcement agencies and critical infrastructure operators. Of the 600+ inquires, approximately 2% pertained to special events and approximately 3% were of high interest. The remaining 95% were issues of suspicious activity. The two GISAC Criminal Intelligence Analysts have conducted over 860 intelligence inquiries for GISAC, FBI/JTTF, INS, Military Law Enforcement and out-of-state agencies during the 2003 fiscal year.
The nation's threat level was increased to threat level Orange/High 4 times for a total of 80 days during the 2002 Fiscal Year. While under threat level orange, GISAC monitored all events in excess of 5000 people. Law Enforcement points - of - contact were developed for each of the venues in the event threat

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

37

2002 Byrne Annual Report

information was developed and needed to be provided to the appropriate personnel for appropriate action.
During the beginning phases of the War with Iraq, March 17, 2003, GISAC worked jointly with the Atlanta FBI/JTTF by taking calls of suspicious activities and forwarding the information to the FBI's Joint Operations Center (JOC). GISAC Agents and Analysts also worked jointly in follow up of the leads through the FBI's JOC.
Grant funding was utilized to lease and build out secure space for GISAC offices and an operations center. A secure computer network system was developed and installed to connect seamlessly with the GBI Intelligence Unit for GISAC operations. Additionally, an adequate computer network infrastructure was required to support the ongoing projects with the Georgia Tech Research Institute and the Georgia Data Center at Kennesaw State University. In order to maintain the integrity of the network, essential utility items such as secure telephone/computer lines, internal and external security systems, and alternate/back up power sources were installed to ensure secure handling of intelligence information and uninterrupted service during a power outage. These primary systems are operational and have reoccurring costs, which are paid through grant funds.
Another component of the Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center involved a Mission Planning and Engineering Support Services Initiative. The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) was provided Byrne grant funding to embark on creating the Geographic Tool for Visualization and Collaboration, or GTVC.
The Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center (GISAC) of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) are members of the Georgia Homeland Security Task Force (GHSTF) with responsibility for the security of Georgia's people and property against terrorist and criminal activities and attacks. The GHSTF required a secure information infrastructure at its new field office, connectivity to other state and federal law enforcement resources and databases, and enhanced intelligence analysis and visualization capabilities. In turn, the GRTI was commissioned to develop the needed capabilities.
A portion of the tasks performed in this component through the first of a multiphase effort include the design, development, and implementation of a secure information sharing architecture that provides extensible connectivity to other databases along with interactive collaborative mission planning and realtime information display features.
An application was developed initially known as the Battlefield Visualization System, or BVS now known as the GTVC. This application displays detailed map images on a touch-sensitive "SmartBoard". Gestures and symbols are drawn directly on the map and stored for later replay or transmission. Verbal comments are captured as the mission is planned, and all the recorded actions can be accessed using an interactive time-bar slider control at the bottom of the display. Different experts can each draw on their own individual overlays, and any number of overlays can be combined as desired. Other users can provide inputs over a network from remote locations, and all participants can see their contributions added or removed from the map in real time.
The GTRI-developed Falcon View mission planning application is used as the mapping engine for the collaborative mission planning tool. An abstraction layer provides access to the Falcon View map services via its documented API (Application Program Interface) routines, and the mission planning tool itself is coded in the Java programming language for portability across multiple computing platforms.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

38

2002 Byrne Annual Report

This system has been configured and improved upon to make symbols and icons more appropriate for local law enforcement and civil defense needs. Improvements to the robustness of the security logging features have also been improved to make the system more suitable for a 24/7-production environment.

Section11.2: Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange Program (GILEE) 10 Participants - ($41,250)
In the unsettled days following the 9/11 attacks, many of us struggled to find a sense of stability and security. A Byrne grant provided funding to various law enforcement officials in the state of Georgia enabling them to gain a small but prevailing international perspective on crime.
In June 2003, the 11th delegation of the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE), were guests of the Israeli National Police (INP). Of the 14 law enforcement executives 11 were Georgia Byrne grant funded. Below is a list of the agencies and positions represented on the trip:
Assistant Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Executive Director, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Chief of Police, Moultrie, Georgia Major, Athens-Clarke County Police Department, Athens, Georgia Assistant Chief, Atlanta, Georgia, Police Department Clarke County Sheriff, Athens, Georgia Major, Georgia State Patrol Commander, Marietta, Georgia, Police Department Major, Forsyth County Sheriff's Office, Cumming, Georgia Captain, Covington, Georgia, Police Department Lt. Colonel, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Against the backdrop of preparing security for the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta, GILEE was established in 1992 with a 3-fold mission: 1) to enhance inter-agency cooperation between the State of Georgia law enforcement agencies and the police force of the State of Israel; 2) to offer an educational professional program to senior Israeli law enforcement officials in Georgia, primarily in the area of community policing; and, 3) to offer an educational professional program to senior Georgia law enforcement officials in Israel, primarily in the areas of counter-terrorism and drug interdiction.
The host law enforcement agency to the GILEE participants was the Israeli National Police (INP). There are 26,000 sworn officers in the INP, which is the only police force in Israel. Twenty percent of these sworn officers are female. Everyone who works for INP is sworn, whether in operational, administrative, or support capacities. INP has lost 1,104 police officers to line of duty deaths since its inception in 1948, the same time the State of Israel was declared. Forty police officers have been killed in the last 3 years. INP also utilizes 75,000 auxiliary officers who volunteer to serve in the Civil Guard.
This two week excursion was filled with briefings, demonstrations, site tours, and networking opportunities to learn from the INP their counterterrorism measures and emergency management skills. A stop at their Police Studies College allowed participants to observe the Police Museum as well as a demonstration with 2 of their 300 police dogs. INP has 30 dog handlers, and use German Shepherds, Springer Spaniels, and Golden Retrievers for missions that include drug searches, explosive identification, and search and rescue.
One of the most outstanding highlights of the trip was a day-long visit to the Golan Heights region in northern Israel. This mountainous area is breathtaking in its natural beauty, but for Israel it is most prominent as the border security between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. A military installation

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

39

2002 Byrne Annual Report

sits at a strategic point in the Golan Region charged with surveillance of these borders, and capture of unwanted trespassers who try to infiltrate Israel to carry out terror acts.
INP's Border Drug Interdiction team demonstrated methods for slowing the drug trafficking between Lebanon and Israel. The team has seized significant amounts of hash in 2003 in a number of successful operations. Interpol has noted that Israeli drug dealers are considered to be the best in the world in synthetic drug smuggling. In the three years of the recent wave of terrorism, Israel has lost more than 800 people and sustained more than 5,000 injuries. Due to terrorism, Israel has also lost 50% of its standard of living in the past three years.
Israel's Crime Lab has 200 positions and 200 field technicians and 30,000-50,000 wanted criminals in their database.
Jerusalem's Explosive Ordinance Division (EOD) Commander provided a perspective for the increase in terrorist incidents in recent years. For example:
2000 saw 416 incidents soar to 1,776 in 2002 196 suicide incidents from September 2000 until May 2003 from a combined total of 35 for the years 1990-2000 These 196 included 117 suicide bombers, 15 suicide car bombs, and 64 suicide terrorist attacks Targets: 28% transportation, 34% crowded places; 18% businesses, 15% restaurants, 5% malls
With the U.S.'s homeland security initiatives, summary intelligence from the Home Front Command (HFC) was especially timely. HFC was established in response to the 1991 Gulf War scud missile attacks. Today, early warning systems give Israel a few minutes to act on incoming missile attacks, and to notify the civilians in that area to go to designated shelters for protection. Israel's building codes now demand that one room in each building be sealed from bio-chemical contamination, as well as from earthquakes. 30-40% of all buildings now have that protection. People are provided with personal protective kits complete with gas masks.
One of the most opportune briefings was an on-site visit to the protection area of the Seam Line, the area discussed in today's media as the fence being built to separate from the Palestinian area of Kalkilya. The GILEE delegation was provided with proper protection during this visit.
Please Note: 80-90% of all terrorist attacks in Israel are thwarted prior to completion.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

40

2002 Byrne Annual Report

SECTION 12: ENFORCING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAWS - PURPOSE AREA #28 GBI - Child Abuse Investigative Support Center - 1 State Project ($281,250)
The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council obligated Byrne grant funds to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's (GBI) Child Abuse Investigative Support Center (CAISC). The center provides training in addition to consultative services. It is comprised of forensic pathologists/medical examiners, a supervisory special agent, and a program coordinator.
The center is designed to receive requests from law enforcement agencies concerning child abuse investigations and renders investigative and medico-legal expertise to requesting agencies. Additionally, the center travels throughout the state for the purpose of providing child abuse related training to law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, coroners and medical examiners' office staff, prosecutors, child advocacy centers, emergency medical services personnel, and clinical professionals.
Part of the program is to provide consultations, concerning whether injuries have occurred accidentally or intentionally, to any requesting law enforcement agency and Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) staff. The project provided twelve investigative consultations and twenty-one forensic consultations across the state.
The Special Agent (Agent) involved in the project has been requested by local law enforcement to review ongoing investigations regarding child abuse. Acting as a liaison, the Agent has numerous contacts with state and local officials regarding cases of child abuse. During the reporting period, the Agent had contact with nine different Sheriff's Departments, four local police departments, twenty-five DFCS/Advocacy centers, four District attorney's offices, and other meetings with the Governor's Office of the Child Advocate as well as Protocol meetings and Child Fatality Review Team meetings.
The second responsibility of the unit is to provide training throughout the entire state. Two classes are scheduled per month. The majority of the attendants in the class maintain law enforcement, child protective service, prosecutor, and medical backgrounds. The CAISC has on-site training programs that serve to educate and inform child abuse sector practitioners. Thirteen on-site trainings have been held (743 attendees). This number does not include the multiple trainings held through various other local and state agencies of which CAISC staff has been a participant.
The CAISC works closely with the Medical Examiner's Office. The project's Program Coordinator attends every child abuse autopsy the pathologist completes. If the death becomes a homicide, the Program Coordinator alerts the GBI Child Abuse Specialist to the fact that a homicide has occurred in the respective region and consults with the local law enforcement agency to determine whether GBI assistance is needed.
The Medical Examiner's Office has assumed the responsibility of Clayton County Coroner. The CAISC assisted with forensic crime scene reconstruction and conducted three in Clayton and one in Barrow County.
The members of the CAISC have also attended different child abuse training conferences. Training programs attended for this reporting period were the Serious Injury and Fatal Child Abuse Conference, the Prevent Child Abuse Georgia 19th Annual Symposium (instruction provided by CAISC staff during several workshops) and the San Diego International Child Maltreatment Conference. In the future, the CAISC anticipates conducting trainings with daycare facilities regarding the recognition of child abuse.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

41

2002 Byrne Annual Report

12.2: Emanuel County Crimes Against Children Unit 1 Local Project ($44,674)
The Council provided Byrne grant funding to the Emanuel County Crimes Against Children Unit. This unit is primarily a forensic medical component of Emanuel County and The Sunshine House, a Children's Advocacy Center, which was started to provide services to child victims from within the Middle Judicial Circuit and other surrounding counties as needed. During the Unit's first year of services, seventy-seven children received a forensic medical examination. Of the children that were provided services for with this grant, a breakdown follows:
33 or nearly 50% were age 6 and under 32 were age 7-12 12 were age 13 or older 67 were females 10 were males 32 were from within the Middle Judicial Circuit, 45 were from surrounding counties
The head-to-toe examination is conducted in a child friendly environment by professionals with special training in child sexual abuse issues. An important goal is to enable the child to understand that while something bad may have happened, the child is "ok" and on the path toward healing and recovery. The team approach is implemented to ensure that a model protocol is followed which includes assistance to the professionals involved, the non-offending family members, and a child advocate.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

42

2002 Byrne Annual Report

Supplemental Information
and Documentation

Appendix A/Exhibit 1
DARE Culmination Activity Report

DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM CULMINATION ACTIVITY REPORT

School

Project Reporting Period: July 1, 2002 June 30, 2003

Grade School System Number of Students Taught

Number of Students Graduated

Westside Elementary

5th

City of Marietta

88

88

Park St. Elementary

5th

City of Marietta

88

88

Lockheed Elementary

5th

City of Marietta

162

162

Lyons Elementary

5th

Toombs County

127

127

Toombs Central Elementary

5th

Toombs County

75

75

Robert Toombs Christian Academy 5th Toombs County

28

28

Toombs County Middle

7th

Toombs County

186

186

Hillsman Middle School

7th

Clarke County

270

270

Burney Harris-Lyons Middle School 7th Clarke County

204

204

TOTAL All Schools/Systems

1228

1228

Dates of Term
2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003 2002-2003

Appendix B/Exhibit 1
School Resource Officer Culmination Activity Report

Subgrant Number

Subgrantee

B02-8-009 City of Baxley B02-8-044 City of Kingsland B02-8-053 City of Ocilla

Assigned Officer Complaints Initiated
Complaints

Drug Related Arrests for Felonies

Drug Related Arrests for
Misdemeanors

Adults Juveniles Adults Juveniles Dollar Value

Type of Drug

0

5

0

0

1

12

$180

Cocaine/Cannabis

90

20

0

1

1

6

$75

Cannabis

109

11

0

0

0

5

$15

Cannabis/Depressants

TOTALS

199

36

0

1

2

23

$270

see above

School Resource Officer Data

Subsequent Refferrals

Hours Spent on Instruction

Social Service Agency
3 2 1

School/Agency Law Enforcement Other Criminal Justice Safety Alcohol/Drug Abuse

174

51

0

96

57

63

5

4

0

10

5

3

4

2

0

4

14

1

Teacher Orientation
54 0 67

Education Evenings
24 0 14

Community
Presentations 16 0 8

6

183

57

0

110

76

67

121

38

24

Hours Spent on Activities

Campus Crime Prevention
321 20 426

Community Drives
0 0 0

747

0

Appendix C/Exhibit 1
Operations Procedures and Case Management Standards for Task Forces

Appendix C/Exhibit 2
Standard Value Chart

MEMORANDUM

FROM: DATE:

Standard Distribution
Roy J. Harris Deputy Director for Investigations June 20,2002 Standardized Drug Values

Drug values will be calculated as follows beginning with the fiscal year 2003:
MARIJUANA

200 2,400

OUNCE POUND

125 l' 100

200 3,000
CANNABIS POUND/PLANTS(ONE POUND PER PLANT)

NOTE: Marijuana will be identified as Sinsemilla or Commercial

COCAINE

POWDER COCAINE .GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

100 1,000 12,000 23,000

Standard Distribution June 1,2003 Page 2

Memorandum

CRACK COCAINE ROCK GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

HEROIN

GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

METHAMPHETEMINE
GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

.b.Q

PER DOSAGE

DILAUDID

PER DOSAGE

BARBITURA

~~R DOSAGE

STIMULANTS

PER DOSAGE

ECSTACY

(MDMA) PER

DOSAGE

ROBYPNOL

PER DOSAGE

OXYCONTIN

PER DOSAGE

20 125 1,000 12,500 23,000
400 5,500 60,000 150,000
130 1,200 10,500 15,000

Standard Distribution Memorandum June 1,2002 Page 3

RI

..tl:

PER DOSAGE

PERCOCET PER DOSAGE

XANAX

PER DOSAGE

The drug value information in the CLERIS Case Management System will reflect these V~IIIA~
Thank you for your coope ration in this matter.

RJH:

vt

Appendix D/Exhibit 1
Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan

2003 Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan

I. Introduction
The Georgia Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan listed numerous goals within Section 4 of the plan. Several of these goals relate directly to the waiver criteria for the Byrne 5% set-aside requirement. Others are subsequent criteria imposed by the Brady Law and other federal statutes. Activity has occurred in overall record improvement and clear progress toward plan goals can be reported. The goals are divided into seven areas, each with specific targets. This report follows the organization of Section 4 of the primary CJRI Plan with the status of each specific goal following the statement of the goal. The activities listed in the subsequent sections follow very closely the strategies outlined for each goal in the CJRI Plan. Also included in the report is information on the various sub-projects and statistics on disposition reporting. Finally, there is a listing of the current CJRI Subcommittee members in Attachment A.
II. Status on Plan Goals
1. Completeness and Accuracy of Criminal History Records
There are four specific goals to satisfy this criteria. These goals and their status follow:
a. 95% of current felony arrest records and fingerprints are complete. Complete is defined as fully and accurately reflecting criminal justice transactions. For felony arrests comprising the last five years, a reasonable attempt must be made to achieve complete records for 90% of felony arrests. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe the attempts made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: Significant activity designed to reach this goal was initiated upon plan approval. First, a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) backlog of 300,000 unprocessed criminal fingerprint cards was totally eliminated. These cards, representing one year's worth of criminal arrests are now on the Automated Fingerprint Identification (AFIS) and the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) databases are available to the criminal justice community. The elimination of the criminal card backlog ensures that all criminal fingerprint cards submitted to GCIC are entered onto its databases.
Second, activity within the area of criminal history audits has occurred over the last twelve months. In the law enforcement area, the major goal of the criminal history
1 of 20

audit is to ensure that all qualified arrestees are fingerprinted, the records submitted to GCIC, and correct rules followed for access and dissemination of criminal history data. Over 272 local sites (which include both law enforcement and judicial sites) have been audited. In agencies where discrepancies were found, corrective action was initiated. Follow-up audits will be conducted at these sites to ensure compliance.
Finally, live scan devices have been installed in local law enforcement agencies throughout the state and funding for this effort over the next year will be continued by multi-grant programs. With this effort, arrests are received at GCIC in real time mode and faster updates of both the AFIS and CCH databases occur. Currently, 78% of all criminal fingerprint cards are submitted to GCIC in an electronic format; further, 100% of all criminal fingerprint cards are submitted to the FBI electronically. Internet protocols are now incorporated with the submission of fingerprints using card scan and live scan devices.
b. 95% of current felony arrest records contain disposition information, if a disposition of the case has been reached. Disposition is defined as case termination by release without charge, prosecutor declination, or court adjudication. For felony arrests comprising the last five years, a reasonable attempt must be made to obtain disposition information for 90% of these felony arrests. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe the attempt made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: There was also activity in this area. GCIC continues to outsource the processing of dispositions so that adequate processing resources exist to handle current and future workloads in this area. The entry of the backlogged dispositions and the maintenance of current disposition processing helped raise overall disposition levels for years 1995, 1996, 1997,1998,1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Second, activity in the area of the local agency audit efforts, specifically the delinquent disposition collection effort, has led to additional disposition reporting. For the last year (2002), 30,028 delinquent dispositions were researched, of these, 11,620 dispositions were processed. These numbers include dispositions that were located by the audit staff on behalf of the Firearms Program.
Third, GCIC continued its heavy involvement in court disposition automation efforts and as a result of its efforts, 129 courts representing 69 counties in Georgia developed automated court disposition reporting capabilities. In addition, GCIC has worked with
2 of 20

the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA) to automate court disposition data from all 159 Superior Court Clerk's offices. The Georgia Superior Court Clerks have provided electronic collection and transmission of disposition data to the GSCCCA. The GSCCCA then transmits the disposition data to the GCIC. All court automation vendors must meet GCIC and GSCCCA guidelines for reporting dispositions. To date, four vendors (Icon Software, The Software Group (TSG), Harris Custom Programming (HCP) and Sustain Software) have met the GCIC requirements for transmission of final disposition.
Fourth, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta cooperatively created a plan and grant proposal to develop an integrated automated disposition-reporting system. Funding for this project was approved and $350,000 was initially awarded to develop the system. This system "ties" all case disposing agencies (i.e. courts, prosecutors and clerks) in the City of Atlanta and Fulton County together and automates a process that is currently manual in nature. Under the conditions of the award, the City of Atlanta and Fulton County must provide 25% matching funds to complete the project. Hitachi Data System (HDS) was chosen as the vendor to implement this system. The automated case disposition system project consists of three phases. Phase 1, which has been completed and is in operation, created an internal network between the Superior and Municipal courts and an external network for the submission of final disposition data to GCIC. In, Phase 2, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), were awarded $368,278 in grant funds. Phase 2 linked into the system, the Fulton County District Attorney, the Fulton County Solicitor General, the State Court Clerk, City Court Clerk, and the Solicitors of the City Court and Municipal Court. The integrated system also automated the Offender Base Tracking System (OBTS) and provided browser capability. At present, the internal and external networks are in place for the Fulton County Automated Case Disposition System (ACDS), however the vendor working on the project, Hitachi Data System (HDS) has gone out of business; Fulton County has hired a contractor who will complete the ACDS project. Both Fulton County State Court and Fulton County Superior Court have re-started their certification process of final disposition data to GCIC. The certification process ensures that the ACDS meets the GCIC guidelines for reporting dispositions.
c. 95% of current sentences to and releases from prison are available. A reasonable attempt must be made to improve the availability of incarceration information in past records with a target of obtaining incarceration information for 90% of the felony arrests over the last five years. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe attempts made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
3 of 20

Status: One state agency, the Department of Corrections, is responsible for reporting all incarceration information. It submits most incarceration data, as well as release data, to GCIC in an automated fashion. Other data, including probation and parole information, is also reported in a mix of automated and manual means. As the disposition reporting levels approach the target goals over the next two years, cross check programs will be run to compare the number of dispositions with incarceration sentences against the number of incarcerations reported. Release data will be crosschecked by comparing release data in the CCH database against Department of Corrections data base release information.
Second, a contract was signed with Dr. John Speir of Applied Research Services, Inc. to develop an integrated data warehouse for policy and research. This system will comprise of information from the Department of Corrections, Pardons and Parole, and the Georgia Crime Information Center's CCH and UCR files. Government Officials, Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice community will have access to this integrated system.
d. 95% of the current arrest records should be flagged as to felony status. A reasonable attempt must be made to improve the flagging of felonies in existing records with a goal of achieving such flagging for 90% of the arrest records over the past five years. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe attempts to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: Georgia has already flagged all of its criminal history records with felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction or unknown. As a participant in III, Georgia records have been and remain available through the III. Every effort has been made and will continue to be made to reduce the number of unknown status records. Current dispositions all require the setting of the above-mentioned flag for felony or misdemeanor convictions prior to update of the CCH record. Delinquent dispositions also require the setting of this flag prior to update of the CCH record. Georgia also incorporated the new requirement for misdemeanor domestic violence conviction disqualification status. Finally, Georgia was the second state to ratify the Interstate Compact for III data sharing and is far advanced in planning to be a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state.
4 of 20

2. Full Automation of Criminal History and Fingerprint Records
There are four specific criteria to meet this goal.
a. All criminal history records from the past five years must be automated.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All criminal history records within the repository are fully automated.
b. All master name index records from the past five years must be automated.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All master name index records within the repository are fully automated.
c. New records for offenders with prior manual records must be entered into the automated files, including the preexisting manual record.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All new records for offenders are entered into the automated files. Since there are no preexisting manual records for these records that point is moot.
d. Procedures must be established to ensure all records related to felony offenses are entered into the automated system within 30 days of receipt by the central repository and all other records are entered within 90 days.
Status: With the elimination of the arrest fingerprint card backlog, the goal of entering all felony offenses into the automated system within 30 days of receipt by the central repository has been met. In fact, the average time to enter this data into the repository is less than one week from date of receipt for manual submissions. Furthermore, the successful upgrade of the AFIS to receive electronic fingerprints supports a 24-hours a day, seven-day-a-week operation and electronic submissions account for 78% of the criminal fingerprint card workload. Electronic fingerprints are processed and CCH files are updated on average within 15 minutes of time of receipt. The elimination of the disposition report backlog ensured that reports of final disposition data and other types of documents are updated well within the 30-day time frame for felonies. In fact, all arrests and dispositions are applied to the CCH data base well within 30 days of receipt of document. The ongoing automation effort in disposition reporting allows for update of the CCH database within the same day the disposition is entered at the local site.
5 of 20

3. Increased Reporting to the FBI
There are two specific requirements for this goal.
a. Fingerprints taken at arrest and/or confinement are submitted to the state repository and, when appropriate, to the FBI CJIS Division. The state repository, when appropriate, shall forward such fingerprints to the FBI/CJIS Division within two weeks of receipt.
Status: Georgia has operated under a mandatory reporting law for all documents related to fingerprinting and dispositions since 1973. The Local Audit Team project has provided the capability to ensure compliance with the provisions of this law. Moreover, because of the elimination of the criminal card backlog and GCIC's electronic interface with the FBI, all fingerprints, which are manually received, are sent to the FBI within hours of receipt by the repository. This is due, in part, to the fact that all manually received prints are scanned into the Georgia AFIS and are, in turn electronically transmitted to the FBI. In addition, electronic fingerprints (currently 78% of the current criminal card workload) are sent from local law enforcement agencies, processed by the Georgia AFIS and sent on to the FBI on average within 15 minutes of receipt of the electronic submission by GCIC. At the present time, all criminal fingerprint cards are transmitted electronically to the FBI's CJIS division.
a. Final dispositions are reported to the state repository and, when appropriate, to the FBI CJIS Division within 90 days after the disposition is known.
Status: The elimination of the disposition backlog during July 1997 ensured that all dispositions -were processed within 30 days, well within the 90-day time frame. Presently, the processing of all manual dispositions is outsourced to a private vendor. On average, approximately 1000 dispositions per day are processed by the vendor, with a maximum contractual obligation of 25,000 per month. All dispositions, submitted in paper form, are on the system approximately 1 weeks after receipt by GCIC, with delinquent dispositions receiving top priority. Following the processing of dispositions at the state level, all dispositions are submitted via magnetic tape to the FBI on a monthly basis. In this situation, all dispositions (delinquent and current) are submitted in the same manner. Additionally, a second expungement tape is submitted to the FBI with data regarding first offender completions and records sealed as allowed by O.G.C.A. 35-3-37(d).
6 of 20

As mentioned earlier in this section, the development of the City of Atlanta/Fulton County automated disposition reporting system serves as a "prototype" to encourage other disposition submitting agencies to automate their processes. This tracking system is one of the major reasons the subcommittee wished to move the prototype test of this system to the current funding cycle.
Finally, ongoing efforts to automate court systems, now encompassing 129 courts representing 69 counties ensures automated court disposition updates of the CCH database within a week of adjudication. These automated dispositions reduce the workload on the manual disposition processing efforts and free up resources to help process the delinquent disposition workload. Currently, approximately 39% of all dispositions are submitted electronically.
4. Support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
There is one goal outlined in the U.S. Attorney General's letter to the Governor of Georgia dated May 27, 1994. It involves percentages of complete records within the last five years sharable through the Interstate Identification Index (III).
a. December 1998 - 75% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete. December 1999 - 80% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete. December 2000 - Up to 100% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete.
Status: Georgia has a 99% acceptance rate for all records that are shareable with III. The reduction and elimination of the disposition backlog, the aggressive delinquent disposition collection project and continued automation of disposition reporting all have led to increased levels of disposition reporting as can be seen in Section IV. Furthermore, the development of the integrated justice system by the City of Atlanta and Fulton County project will increase disposition reporting from the pretrial area as well as provide a "tickler" system to track the status of interim dispositions. Additionally, GCIC serves as the point of contact for NICS in the state of Georgia.
5. Child Protection Law Requirements
This is a tightly focused goal to improve the completeness and accuracy of child abuse records as outlined in the U.S. Attorney General's letter to the Governor of Georgia dated June 20, 1994.
7 of 20

a. Membership in III 80% Complete for Identifiable Child Abuse Records Up to 100% Complete and Available On-Line

X Dec. 96 Dec. 00

Status: As shown by the "X", Georgia is already a member of III. Subsequent to the June 20, 1994 letter, the National Child Protection Task Group recommended to the Attorney General that this specific set of goals be incorporated into the overall Brady and CJRI goals. The Task Group explained there was lack of funding for this Act. Furthermore, the tight focus on specific child abuse crimes left out other child abuse crimes reported as assaults, rapes, etc. As stated in the CJRI Plan, Georgia's overall emphasis on automation, collection of delinquent dispositions, and source agency auditing is designed to increase the overall percentage of complete criminal history records for the past five years. As reported in other sections, the plan is making significant progress that will help meet the overall goal of this requirement.

6. Stalking, Domestic Violence, and Protection Orders
a. To plan for the collection and entry of data within these categories for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other authorized parties.
Status: In May 1997, the FBI installed a National Protection Order file and GCIC implemented the programs to access and update this federal file. During the 2001 session of the Georgia General Assembly, a bill passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Roy E. Barnes. The law gave GCIC authority for the development and operation of a state protective order registry. This system, which became operational in September 2002, is a web-based system that tracks protective orders and forwards relevant data to the national file. The registry is populated with images and NCIC data entered by Georgia's 159 Superior Court Clerks. Since the registry became operational, Georgia has registered to NCIC 705 Active Protection Orders, 918 Inactive Protection Orders; 356 Active Temporary Orders, 2,891 Inactive Temporary Orders; 193 Cleared Protection Orders and 143 Cleared Temporary Orders.
Implementation of 5 additional protective order forms and enhancements to the Georgia registry were implemented in April 2003. Currently, computer personnel are working on a list of registry enhancements which includes obtaining additional data from the courts to populate the NCIC, protective order file expansion of daily and monthly reports and the transmission of protective order images to NCIC.

8 of 20

7. Violent Sexual Offender Registry
a. Georgia must institute a violent sexual offender registry that meets the requirements of the Federal sexual offender statutes.
Status: Georgia has successfully implemented a Violent Sexual Offender Registry containing over 7,623 offenders, which is a 1,562 increase from last year. The Georgia General Assembly has provided state funding to keep this registry in operation. Recent enhancements to the registry include automating the process to allow local and state law enforcement agencies to submit or update records electronically and the ability to capture and store mugshots. There has been a significant increase in the number of records in the registry that have a mugshot associated with an offender's registry record. Currently there are approximately 56% records with mugshot images.
In 1998, BJS announced the National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSORAP) which provides funding to states to meet the federal requirements for sex offender registration that were established by the Jacob Wetterling Act, Pam Lychner Act and Megan's Law. Through this program, Georgia was awarded $569,911 to automate the submission of data to the sex offender registry. The GBI collaborated with the Georgia Department of Corrections and the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles to accomplish this goal. These funds were used to automate the submission of information to the registry; it was also used to create the ability to capture a mugshot of each offender on the registry. This information is posted on the GBI's website to supplement the notification efforts that are currently in place throughout the state. Essentially, this project allows the local probation or parole officer to have a direct connection to supply the registration information to the GBI through the placement of a PC and a digital camera in all probation and parole offices in the state. By having this system in place, we dramatically reduced the amount of time that it takes to register an offender and post the appropriate information on the GBI's official website, located at http://www.ganet.org/gbi.
III. Separate Projects Under CJRI Plan
1. Local Audit Team
Award was $311,920 from FY96 funds. Activity in this area includes both activities from previous grant and new grant awards.
9 of 20

311 audits 28,664 delinquent dispositions collected.
During FY97, the amount awarded was $250,000.
330 audits 27,007 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY98, $251,666 was awarded. During this period, continued progress was made in this area.
245 audits 22,899 delinquent dispositions collected.
During FY99, $250,000 was awarded to this program. Due to the personnel turnover, a decline in the number of dispositions collected can be seen.
261 audits 13,822 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY00, $300,000 was awarded to this program. As in previous years, staffing problems arose and due to the transition period allowed for new personnel, a decline in number of dispositions collected is evident. Currently, the program is back to full staff and should experience greater results with the next cycle.
309 audits 9,424 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY01, $300,000 was awarded to this program. In this period, progress was made in the number of dispositions collected.
433 audits 15,281 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY02, $300,000 was awarded to this program. As in previous years, a decline in the numbers of disposition collected was due to staffing problems. Staff was also used
10 of 20

to research and collect delinquent dispositions from Fulton County, which is considered to have the highest number of disposition with open felony arrests.
206 audits 10,740 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY03, $300,000 was awarded to this program. Part of the audit team were reassigned to headquarters on a rotating basis in order to conduct research on open felony arrests on behalf of the Firearms Program.
272 audits 11,620 delinquent dispositions collected
2. Judicial Automation
Award was $354,300 from FY96 Funds. Activity in this area includes both activities from previous grant and new grant awards.
Continued installation of court based SUSTAIN package. Development and delivery of the Integrated Justice Windows System for evaluation and testing completed.
During FY97, the amount awarded was $392,043.
Continued installation of court based SUSTAIN package. Development and delivery of the Integrated Justice Windows System for evaluation and testing completed.
During FY98, the amount awarded was $356,550. The funds were used for the continued judicial automation efforts.
During FY99, the amount awarded was $363,000. The funds were used for the local courts clerks and the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA) to automate court disposition data from all 159 Superior Court Clerk's offices. The Georgia Superior Court Clerks have provided electronic collection and transmission of disposition data to the GSCCCA. The GSCCCA then transmits the disposition data to the GCIC. All court automation vendors must meet GCIC and GSCCCA guidelines for reporting dispositions. To date, four vendors (Icon Software, The Software Group
11 of 20

(TSG), Harris Custom Programming (HCP) and Sustain Software) have met the GCIC requirements for transmission of final disposition.
3. Live Scan Purchases Byrne 5% set-aside money has been used for the purchase or upgrade of a live scan device to submit fingerprint images and data electronically to GCIC.
4. Other Funds in Addition to 5% Set-Aside Funds
An additional $500,000 was added to 1998 set-aside funds from Byrne for local agencies to purchase live scan devices to submit electronic fingerprints to AFIS. During calendar year 1999, $98,502 was sub-granted to Glynn County to provide for the purchase of an AFIS remote with funds remaining from the FY98 award.
As mentioned previously in the plan, in 1999, $350,000 was awarded to Fulton County for the joint City of Atlanta/Fulton County automated court disposition project these funds are above and beyond the normal 5% set-aside allocations. Additionally, $140,406 in FY99 funds was used to provide livescan devices to Dade, Jones and Peach counties.
During FY00, an additional $368,278 was awarded to AOC for the further development of the City of Atlanta/Fulton County automation project. Further, $100,800 was awarded to Dawson and Greene Counties for the purchase of livescan equipment.
4. NCHIP
Card Scan / Live Scan Sites
As part of the NCHIP 1999 grant $448,528 was awarded to GCIC for the purchase or upgrade of live scan devices for local agencies to submit fingerprint images and data electronically to GCIC.
$301, 240 was awarded to GCIC in the NCHIP 2000 grant for the purchase of upgrade of a live scan device for local agencies to submit fingerprint images and data electronically via the Internet. Currently, 78% of GCIC's existing criminal fingerprint workload is received electronically.
12 of 20

GCIC was awarded $79,351.00 in NCHIP funds for local law enforcement to purchase a digital imaging software interface to connect their existing live scan and mugshot systems. With the addition of this software, the agency's device will have the capability to capture and transmit mugshot photos to GCIC for storage on the Image Archive system.
Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Redesign
GCIC entered into a contract with Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) to analyze and document the current Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system. GTRI was responsible for providing the research and analytical capability to document the database, data definitions and the various programs and modules. In addition, GTRI developed database conversion rules to aid in the migration of the current CCH database to its new schema. This was the first phase of the CCH project, which was completed on October 31, 2002. The second phase of the CCH project consists of the creation of business rules for the new CCH system.
ASAP Program
Both the NCHIP and Byrne 5% set-aside ASAP grant programs focus on the protection order component that support all levels of Georgia's judicial system. The state of Georgia received $249,900 to create a model Temporary Protection Order process. This prototype ensured that standard orders, forms and procedures were developed to support the TPO Registry.
AOC and the Domestic Violence Policy Council worked with the Department of Public Administration and Human Services at Kennesaw State University to prepare an analysis to determine the current number, source, style and content of the orders throughout the state of Georgia. The research provided information on the origin of petitions, the number of petitions and final orders and the content of forms. Kennesaw State University stressed the importance for standardization in areas such as terminology and document formats.
Image Archive
13 of 20

The Image Archive system stores documents containing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fingerprint Images, NIST Mugshot Images, NIST Miscellaneous Images, and Document Images. Images are stored as events and can be retrieved for review or printing by GCIC and eventually, by local criminal justice agencies. The system was fully implemented in June 2001 and became operational in July 2001.
In June 2003, more storage was added to meet new growth in fingerprint images and mugshot submissions.
5. State Funded
Due to the recent change of Georgia law requiring the submission of juvenile fingerprints, an additional $1.1 million was awarded through state funded appropriations for an upgrade to AFIS to accept juvenile submissions. This project has been completed and a total of 7,328 juvenile cards have been processed by the Georgia AFIS.

IV. Disposition Reporting Comparison

Following are disposition reporting rates for the years 1990-2003 and comparisons are available. For those years, Set 1 was taken on April 1997, Set 2 was taken February 1998, Set 3 was taken August 1999, Set 4 was taken August 2000, Set 5 was taken April 2001, Set 6 was taken February 2002 and Set 7 was taken February 2003. The comparison reveals substantial increases for several of the years in question.

1990

4/97 2/98 8/99 8/00 4/01 2/02 9/02

Arrests w/ dispositions 73% 74% 75% 78% 78% 78% 80% Felonies w/ dispositions 75% 80% 83% 84% 84% 84% 88%

1991

Arrests w/ dispositions 73% 76% 77% 80% 81% 81% 82% Felonies w/ dispositions 76% 86% 90% 91% 92% 92% 93%

14 of 20

1992
Arrests w/ dispositions 73% 76% 78% 81% 81% 82% 82% Felonies w/ dispositions 76% 83% 88% 89% 90% 90% 92%
1993
Arrests w/ dispositions 73% 76% 78% 82% 82% 82% 83% Felonies w/ dispositions 76% 82% 87% 88% 88% 90% 90%
1994
Arrests w/ dispositions 71% 77% 79% 83% 84% 84% 85% Felonies w/ dispositions 71% 79% 82% 84% 84% 86% 87%
1995
Arrests w/ dispositions 58% 72% 75% 80% 81% 82% 83% Felonies w/ dispositions 58% 74% 78% 80% 81% 84% 86%
1996
Arrests w/ dispositions 30% 66% 73% 79% 79% 79% 81% Felonies w/ dispositions 24% 63% 72% 74% 74% 75% 78%

1997

4/97 2/98 8/99 8/00 4/01 2/02 2/03

Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --

-- 70% 79% 80% 82% 82% -- 67% 72% 74% 76% 78%

1998 Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --
1999

-- 58% 71% 76% 78% 79% -- 47% 65% 69% 71% 72%

15 of 20

Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --
2000
Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --
2001
Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --
2002
Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --
2003
Arrests w/ dispositions -Felonies w/ dispositions --

-- -- 56% 65% 70% 73% -- -- 49% 62% 69% 72%

-- -- 24% 44% 63% 69% -- -- -- 33% 59% 69%

-- -- --- -- --

4% 33% 63% 2% 24% 59%

-- -- --- -- --

-- 1% 31% -- 0% 23%

-- -- -- -- -- 1% -- -- -- -- -- 0%

16 of 20

Attachment A CJRI Subcommittee Members
17 of 20

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
Criminal Justice Records Improvement Subcommittee
Dr. J. William Holland, Chair Assistant Deputy Director for Plans and Program Development Georgia Crime Information Center
P.O. Box 370748 Decatur, Georgia 30037-0748 404-244-2601/FAX 404-241-5992 e-mail: bill.holland@gbi.state.ga.us
18 of 20

Mr. Richard A. Malone
Director of Prosecuting Attorney Council 3200 Highland Parkway, Suite 420 Smyrna, GA 30082 770-438-2550 / FAX 770-438-6121 e-mail: rmalone@pac.state.ga.us

Mr. David L. Ratley
Director of Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, SW, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30334 404-656-5171 / FAX 404-651-6449 e-mail: ratleyd@aoc.courts.state.ga.us

Sheriff Howard Sills
Putnam County Sheriff's Office P.O. Box 3637 Eatonton, GA 30124 706-485-8577/FAX 706-485-4084 e-mail: hsills@inetnow.net

Ms. Jean H. Rogers Crisp County Superior Court Clerk P.O. Box 747 Cordele, GA 31010 912-276-2616/FAX 912-276-2627 e-mail: jean.rogers@gsccca.org

Col. Lynda Coker Chief of Investigations Cobb County Sheriff's Office 185 Roswell Street Marietta, GA 30090-9650 770-499-4651 / FAX 770-499-4681 e-mail: locker@cobbcounty.org

Mr. Jerry Garland
Administrative Office of the Courts Georgia Courts Automation Commission Suite 414 47 Trinity Avenue, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 651-8165 / FAX 404-651-8181 e-mail: garlandj@gcac.courts.state.ga.us

19 of 20